1951-02-01

DIPLOMATIC INSTRUMENTS


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to
table twenty-seven documents, which are agreements, exchanges of notes and other diplomatic instruments published in the Canada treaty series. Perhaps the list might appear in Votes and Proceedings, unless hon. members wish me to read it now. It is rather long.



STATUTORY HOLIDAYS


Mr. J. L. MacDougall (Vancouver-Burrard) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 2, to amend the Dominion Day Act and the Victoria Day Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Lorne MacDougall: Very little explanation is required on the introduction of this bill. No money is involved, naturally; otherwise I should not be able to introduce it. That, however, is not the main feature. The principal aim of the bill is that the ordinary man, with his wife and family, may have a better opportunity to celebrate statutory holidays by having those statutory holidays observed at the beginning of the week, wherever possible, rather than in the middle of the week, if and when they occur on such days. It is very easy for a man of affluence to take his holidays, either in Canada or abroad, at any time of the year that may suit him, but for the people generally, whom we all represent here, in my opinion it would be a distinct advantage to have this bill go through.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Monlmorency) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 3, to amend the Criminal Code (subversive activities.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Wilfrid Lacroix: The purpose of this bill is to make it a criminal offence for any person to participate in subversive activities with a view to establishing in Canada a totalitarian dictatorship contrary to our democratic way of life.
Following numerous demands from other members and myself, according to the speech from the throne the government has decided to present a bill with an objective which may be similar. If that is done, of course, I much prefer that the government itself go through with it, in which event I might later withdraw my bill. Certainly I would favour deporting to Russia all the communists we have in Canada, in order to give them the opportunity of seeing for themselves what is going on over there.


Mr. Speaker:: May I take this opportunity to point out that when an hon. member introducing a bill is asked to explain it, he should merely explain the provisions of the bill. He should not discuss the merits of the bill nor advance reasons why it should be supported.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



VISITORS IN GALLERY-PRINCIPAL, TEACHERS AND STUDENTS OF ST. CATHARINES COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. P. Cavers (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members of this house no doubt will be interested to learn that Principal Gordon E. Price, of the St. Catharines collegiate institute and vocational schools, five members of his teaching staff and one hundred students of that institution are in the galleries of this chamber today.
Under the auspices of Mr. Price, for the past few months a series of non-partisan addresses on various public matters have been delivered to the students of this school. On October 26 last the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) spoke to those students. Last month the leader of the C.C.F. group (Mr. Coldwell) addressed the student body, and I am informed that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) will speak there this month.
Today, in order to further their interest in citizenship, these students are attending in the galleries of this chamber. The visit

Inquiries of the Ministry is made also in appreciation of the fact that the leaders of the three major political parties have come or are to come to their school. Further, they wish by their presence to extend felicitations to the Prime Minister on the anniversary of his birthday, which he is celebrating today. We feel that visits of this kind do much to further an interest in public affairs on the part of the students of our collegiate institute, and that they in turn will be better citizens as a result of having attended here and having heard the leaders of the political parties in this country. We hope other cities will follow the lead of St. Catharines in carrying on activities of this kind.



BIRTHDAY GREETINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to extend to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) our very best wishes on this, his birthday. I can assure him that whatever differences we may have in regard to the particular problems of the day in no way affect our sincerity when we say many happy returns.



INQUIRY AS TO REMOVAL OF BAN ON IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Trade and Commerce; since the Minister of Agriculture is not here I will direct it to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. On January 24, I believe it was, an order in council was passed requiring Canadian importers of butter to obtain permits before importing that product into Canada. It is my understanding that the order in council has been rescinded. Is that correct, and if so, what is the explanation for it?


Righi Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the statement is correct. The order in council was passed and later rescinded. It was passed because it was believed that imports of butter substantially in excess of amounts required by the Canadian economy were contemplated. The order in council was cancelled when it was found there was no possibility of those imports being made in the foreseeable future.


Mr. Charllon:: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Is it not true a considerable amount of butter has been imported

into this country since the first of the year? How much butter has been imported, and from what countries?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Without consulting my officers, I think I can give the information. There is a certain quantity of butter en route to Canada from New Zealand, amounting to approximately 2-5 million pounds, which is about two and a half days' supply for Canada. No other imports are contemplated.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. West coast press dispatches today indicate that during the visit of the Prime Minister of New Zealand in Ottawa earlier in the week there were discussions about continuation of shipping services by the Aorangi between Canada, New Zealand and Australia, as well as about landing rights for Canadian planes in New Zealand. Will the minister give the house a statement as to the possibility of early action on these two questions?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: The Prime Minister of New Zealand did discuss, with some of my colleagues and myself, the two matters to which reference has just been made. So far as landing rights for Canadian Pacific Air Lines in New Zealand are concerned, it was requested on behalf of the Canadian government that C. P. A. be given stop-over rights in New Zealand. I am happy to say that the Prime Minister took a sympathetic and kindly view towards this request, and promised to discuss it with his cabinet colleagues.
With reference to the steamship subsidy for the Aorangi, I should like to be able to discuss this matter with my colleagues before making a statement.



PRICES AND TRADE BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. Ross Thalcher (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Finance say whether the government is continuing, in view of recent price trends in Canada, its policy of disbanding the personnel of the wartime prices and trade board?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: The answer to the hon. member's question as put is in the affirmative; but perhaps I should add a word of explanation. As the house is

aware, the powers of the wartime prices and trade board are derived from the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act, and as such are subject to severe limitations. Control cannot be reimposed upon any article from which it has been removed. As indicated in the speech from the throne, the government is going to ask parliament to adopt special emergency legislation, and the controls which may be necessary in the future would, I assume, be imposed under that act.
At the moment the personnel of the wartime prices and trade board is down to skeleton proportions, and it is intended to proceed with the policy of disbanding the staff of the board.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Yesterday the Prime Minister tabled correspondence exchanged between the government and the premiers of several of the provinces with respect to suggestions for constitutional amendments. In connection with a similar matter last year the Prime Minister proposed to the house that the documents should be printed in Hansard. Will he, in view of the importance of these documents, propose a similar course in this instance, for the information of members?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: If it is the desire of members to have the correspondence printed as an appendix to Hansard, I think it might be in order for Your Honour so to direct.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that the correspondence referred to be printed as an appendix to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For text of correspondence, see appendix, pages 43 to 47.)



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? Has he received representations asking that the Kellock award be made applicable to hotel and water transport workers in the same way as to railway workers, as was believed to be the intention of parliament when the matter was dealt
The Address-Mr. Drew with last session? Can the Prime Minister say what consideration has been given to any such representations?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The leaders of the labour unions called upon me some time ago-I am not quite sure about the date, but it was after the award was made public-and requested that something be done about the fact that in the award there was a difference between the treatment of the employees in railway service and that accorded to those retained for hotel or water transportation services. My reply was that the government had carried out the terms of the legislation enacted by parliament; that it was not the intention of the government to ask parliament for any further legislation in that regard, and that without further legislation the award of the arbitrator would have to stand.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, January 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. H. McMillan for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, may I first extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. McMillan) and the seconder (Mr. Breton) of this motion. They performed in a commendable manner the duty imposed upon them, and I am sure the manner in which they discharged that duty was such as to meet with acceptance on the part of members on both sides of the house.
We meet today at one of the most solemn hours in Canadian history. The immense gravity of the situation is not measured only by those military events which have impressed upon us the urgent need for building the ramparts of freedom with the utmost speed. Equally serious are the misunderstandings which have arisen among many of the nations which are partners in the common cause of saving freedom itself. Never was there more confusion of thought and uncertainty about the future. The remarkable scientific achievements which carry words and pictures instantly to every part of the world seem only to have added to that confusion.
At such a time, no voice, however humble, should add to that confusion and misunderstanding in any way which can be avoided. The supreme task confronting the free world is to restore with the utmost speed that measure of mutual confidence and good will upon

The Address-Mr. Drew which the effective co-operation of all the free nations must at all times depend. For us it is of the utmost importance that there be the most complete understanding and cooperation between Canada, Great Britain and the United States. To a very considerable extent the defence planning of the whole free world depends upon the closest possible integration of the efforts of these three nations.
Never did the friendly partnership of the British commonwealth mean more to us than it does in these extremely critical days. In addition to all its previous traditions and continuing strength, it stands as an example and demonstration to the whole world that sovereign nations can work together in the closest harmony with no stronger bond than a great and abiding belief in the value of that friendship. For us the starting point of all that co-operation is Great Britain, and for that reason geography has decided that we are not only destined to live side by side with the United States, but that we are also the contact point between the United States, Great Britain and the whole of the commonwealth, which by the complete freedom of its association has a great and impressive role to play in encouraging that close friendship and understanding among all nations which we now know so well to be the only hope of a Arm and lasting peace.
It is equally imperative that we have the most effective and closest understanding between our own country and the United States. Although our population is relatively small, and although their vast productive power and national strength have made them the sheet anchor for the whole free world, we are in many ways their most important partner, because of the resources with which this very fortunate land has been endowed. For the sake of our own future and the wider partnership of all free nations, it is of primary importance that Canada make no move in the international field which might lead to any misunderstanding between these two nations, which stand before the whole world as a bright example of what international friendship can really be between nations lying side by side.
In saying this I am not suggesting that we should blindly follow either Great Britain or the United States. On the contrary I assert with the utmost emphasis my own belief that Canada should at all times have a distinctly Canadian policy which would have as its first and most compelling influence the future growth, prosperity and development of Canada itself. But at this time it seems to me that while we must at all times protect our own future and our own independence, we have no choice but to recognize the fact

that, with a population which is less than one-tenth that of the United States and very much less than that of Britain, there are obvious reasons why the responsibility of international leadership falls mainly upon them, and why it is so important that we should at all times maintain the closest and most intimate relationships with them.
I do not intend to say any more at this time about international affairs, because I think we should first have from the government a statement which will review the events of the past few weeks and indicate the course which the government proposes to follow. In the speech from the throne the references to international affairs are in such general terms that they offer little help in considering this subject at the moment. For the reasons I have already indicated, I shall reserve my comments on the policies of the government in relation to external affairs until we have received the information which the Prime Minister has told us will be placed before us before the end of the week.
A careful examination of the speech from the throne offers little assistance in reaching a conclusion as to what the government really intends to do. The best evidence of this is the extent to which there is already widespread speculation in the press and elsewhere as to the interpretation of different phrases in that speech. We all agree that there is increased danger, as the speech tells us. We all knew that; it would be hard for anybody to escape that knowledge. We also knew that the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force were carrying out certain duties in Korea, and that one battalion of the Canadian Army special force had arrived there for further training. We had also learned, with great satisfaction, of the appointment of General Eisenhower as the supreme commander of the integrated European forces. We also knew that the government had indicated on a number of occasions its willingness to proceed with the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway in co-operation with the appropriate authorities in the United States. The press and the radio had carried extensive reports about the setting up of a new department of defence production, and also about the intention to extend the powers of the government to deal with defence and economic problems. There is also reference to appropriate amendments to legislation affecting the members of the armed forces, which it was obvious would be required. Beyond that there is nothing new except the vague reference to withdrawing the rights of citizenship from those who have been disloyal to Canada. This hardly seems to be an efifec-

tive way of dealing with disloyalty of the kind which would appear to be contemplated by that reference.
Surely there can never have been a less revealing speech from the throne than that which is now before us. While the word "emergency" is used, there is no sense of that urgency which is in keeping with the nature of the emergency with which we are confronted.
Except for the statement that the government will seek additional powers by order in council to "ensure adequate defence preparations . . . and to prevent economic dislocation," there is nothing whatever which tells us what the government really intends to do. We may have had some hint from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) this afternoon when he suggested that if controls were to come they would be dealt with under this power which the government will seek and to which this statement refers. My own impression was that the government had taken adequate powers for that purpose last September-powers which it has failed to exercise.
We all recognize that in the speech from the throne it is not intended to go into extensive detail as to legislation or as to other action that the government will take. It should, however, lay before us a clear indication of the course the government intends to follow in relation to those subjects which are of major concern. At a time when the members of this house and the people of Canada should know exactly what the government intends to do, we have before us a government statement skilfully drafted to give the appearance of recognizing the issues which are before us, while at the same time carefully withholding from us any real information as to what steps are to be taken to assure our survival as a free nation.
It was for that reason that I suggested in a letter to the Prime Minister yesterday that we should adopt the practice which has proved so satisfactory in the British House of Commons. I urged that there should be separate debates on external affairs, national defence, and the cost of living, so that we might receive statements from the government as to what they propose to do and might have an opportunity to present suggestions in an orderly way in relation to those particular subjects. Had this suggestion been acted upon we would all have known something about the plans of the government before proceeding with this debate. May I say that I for one have no desire to see an interruption of this debate. At this extremely critical time, when w are debating our approval or otherwise of the program of the government, we should have
The Address-Mr. Drew some idea of what the government actually intends to do. The vote on the motion to approve the speech from the throne is interpreted as a vote supporting the general proposals of the government for the session. That is why it is taken as the major test of confidence that the government faces in this and any similar parliament. The speech from the throne gives us no real information on which it would be possible to say whether those proposals are satisfactory or otherwise. The introduction into this debate by the various ministers of statements which cover such a wide field is not, I believe, a satisfactory way to lay a foundation for constructive discussion of issues upon the determination of which to a considerable degree our whole future will depend. Without that information it is impossible to discuss details at a time when all of us are anxious to come to grips with reality.
The chilling truth is that never since our civilization emerged from the dark ages has that civilization-and even freedom itself- been so gravely threatened with extinction as it is at this very hour. The people of Canada have never shown themselves unwilling to face reality, but they must be given that leadership which only a government, with all its channels of secret information and its large staffs of technical experts, is in a position to give. Individuals may express their opinions. In the end, however, there is naturally a tendency to think that the government, with its special sources of information in regard to international and domestic affairs, particularly in critical times such as these, is in a position to pass judgment upon the best available information- which may not be available to others who are expressing opinions which may be regarded as sincere but not completely informed.
The people of Canada are waiting to be told, in clear and challenging terms, the extent and nature of their duties. They will not fail to respond to a clear call to duty and an appeal to that spirit of service which has built a strong and vigorous young nation within so short a time.
I fully recognize the heavy responsibilities and burdens which the government carries at this time, as does every other free government which must be subjected to the ordinary tests of democratic discussion, criticism and exchange of ideas. In all that will advance the national interest the government will receive our full support, and I am confident it will receive the support of all hon. members where the issues are plain and where it is abundantly clear that what is proposed is for the continuing advantage of Canada in these very difficult days.

The Address-Mr. Drew
I sympathize with all my heart with the sentiments of the Prime Minister when he expresses his hope of peace. I greatly doubt, however, whether the firm resolve and spirit of sacrifice which is so greatly needed in this country at this time will be aroused by statements that we are talking too much about war and that he is still confident that there will be peace for his lifetime. I hope there will. But the people need to be told the full extent of the dreadful danger with which we are confronted. There is war-cruel, bloody and relentless war. There is a war which has already cost the United States more than 55,000 casualties in seven months. There is war which has brought to a whole nation of freedom-loving people destruction and atrocities of a kind that is not pleasant to contemplate. The people of Korea know what war means, and why all free nations today must take the steps that are necessary to halt aggression.
I am well aware that in making these statements the Prime Minister was referring to a general war. I share with him the hope that a general war can be avoided, and, with him, I believe that a general war still can be avoided if the free nations build up their strength with the speed- and on the scale of which free men and women are capable when fully aroused to the urgency of the demands upon their efforts.
When I referred to the Prime Minister's emphasis on peace I was referring to it in its relationship to other statements. I do not think that the Prime Minister has helped to impress upon our young people the real nature of the threat we face, when great prominence is given in the press and over the radio to his opinion that the odds against war are fifty to one. I should like to think they are, but I do not believe they are, and I do not think any thoughtful person would give odds of that kind at this time. Young men and women are hardly encouraged to sacrifice their present jobs if they think the odds against war are as great as that. If free men and women everywhere put their whole heart into the tasks before them, with that compelling sense of danger which the facts demand, I am as hopeful as anyone can be that the United Nations may still become an effective instrument for dealing with aggression, and that a general war may still be avoided. But the odds against such a war are not too great, and they will rapidly diminish if the men in the Kremlin have any reason to believe that the free nations are failing to make full use of their immense productive capacity and skill and the driving power of which only free men and women are capable.

It is perhaps worthy of passing comment that Lloyd's never did bet fifty to one against the possibility of war. As I understand it, they entered into one of their ordinary contracts on the basis of fifty to one that a philatelic exhibition, which has been arranged in Toronto for next September, will not be prevented from meeting because of war. That is a very different thing. Contracts of that kind were taken out during the course of the last world war. In any event I do not think it helps to create that sense of compelling urgency which is so necessary at this time, when the Prime Minister, with the great prestige of his high office and his recognized sources of secret information, interprets his impression of the dangers we face in the terms of betting odds at Lloyd's.
I am not suggesting that the Prime Minister should seek to spread any atmosphere of gloom. On the contrary I hope that he will do all in his power to spread a spirit of confidence, which can only be justified and will only have some real foundation when a clarion call goes forth to the people of Canada that we are now engaged in a struggle for nothing less than the survival of our decent way of life, and that even the most remote possibility of defeat carries with it consequences too terrible for anyone to contemplate.
It is only when we are united in all our strength and vigour, with knowledge of the facts and faith in our cause, that we can have any reason for confidence. Then we can go forward with our heads erect and with light hearts, knowing that no matter what happens we shall have done our best.
I am well aware that because of their population the United States and Great Britain will play the leading role in guiding the course of military preparations. To a considerable extent we must accept the reality that we have no choice but to adjust our plans substantially to theirs. But the way in which we carry out our own part in that collective effort must be exclusively our own decision. Do not let us hear that we are being told by anyone else how we should do those jobs which are our own responsibility. What we do, and the way we do it, will have the most profound effect, not only upon our contribution to the joint defence of freedom, but upon the whole future of our country.
I propose, therefore, to deal with those two subjects which are exclusively within our own control and for which the parliament of Canada must assume full responsibility. National defence, and all the economic and financial consequences of the expenditures on defence, are the two most important

subjects that will, engage the attention of the members of this house during the present session.
I will refer first to national defence. On no single subject of importance is the Canadian public less accurately informed. On no single question is it so necessary that the public be fully informed, subject only to the strict demands of secrecy-and the real demands of secrecy cover a very limited part of our defence preparations.
We must examine defence not only from the point of view of the effectiveness of the defence forces themselves, both from the point of view of training and equipment, but we must also insist upon such detail as will make it possible for us to be sure that the huge sums of money which are to be spent on defence are to be spent in the best possible way.
It now appears that Canada is likely to spend as much in the year 1951 for national defence as was spent in the whole five years following the last world war.
I am sure there will be no tendency on the part of the members of this house to limit any expenditures that are actually necessary; but when it is probable that we shall be called upon to approve expenditures in excess of one and a half billion dollars in a single year, a duty is imposed upon every member in every part of this house to insist that we have the most complete information, and that we know that every dollar is being spent for the best possible purpose arid that it will produce the greatest possible results at the earliest possible time.
Although the government had never been stinted by parliament in the money it asked for preparation for defence, the people of Canada learned with amazement and dismay last year, when the attack came on Korea, that we had no land forces ready to go into action. With all the millions that have been spent since that time, there is very great uncertainty that we have more than a very small number who are ready to go into action yet. _
Many alarming details have come to light within the past few weeks. It was with astonishment that those who were aware of our shortage of weapons learned that a government arsenal, which could have been making modern weapons, was making shotguns to be sold for sporting purposes. It was with equal astonishment that we learned it was necessary to send Canadian forces to the United States to train, although we have been spending so much money on the many large military camps across Canada. But details of that kind are in themselves not
The Address-Mr. Drew nearly so alarming as the statement issued a few weeks ago by the conference of defence associations.
To appreciate the importance of their statement, we must recall that this annual conference of the defence associations brings together senior officers appointed by each of the military associations which represent all the different services of the Canadian army. These are the men who are actually serving in our reserve forces. These are the men who are in close contact with our permanent forces as well. These are the men who are largely responsible for interpreting the opinion of those who are in uniform. That conference represents the highest possible authority in regard to the actual state of training of our reserve forces, upon which the land defence of Canada or our participation in any collective plan must still in the main depend.
Recognizing the special position they occupy, and the absolute impartiality of the views they express, let me quote from the statement presented to the government less than a month ago by the conference of defence associations:
We feel Canadians are prepared to pay such taxes in view of the issues involved, but we do not feel that Canadians are prepared to see moneys wasted. It is our considered and unanimous opinion that proper value is not being received for much of the public moneys now being spent on the reserve force.
In spite of the existing shortages of facilities for the reserve force, in many places the strength of units does not absorb present facilities for training by a substantial margin. Far more men could be trained in the reserve force than are presently coming forward.
The turnover of other ranks is such that the vast majority of men who appear from time to time on the nominal rolls of reserve force units receive no training worthy of the name. They do not stay with the unit long enough. To say that the reserve force is 40,000 strong, and to give the Canadian people the idea that it has 40,000 men who could quickly be ready for action, is a travesty of the facts. There are few, if any, reserve units in Canada that could be ready to function in action under a minimum period of six months. This includes AA-
Anti-aircraft.
-and other such units which should be ready for immediate action. The Canadian public, in spite of the moneys spent, cannot look to effective and efficient protection from internal sabotage or external aggression from its reserve force for a considerable period after war breaks out, and the active force is far too small to undertake the full burden of such duties.
That is the end of an extremely significant and illuminating quotation from the presentation made to the government by the conference of defence associations. Let me repeat that those who attended were all senior officers-officers appointed by the Canadian Infantry Association, the Canadian Artillery
22	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Drew Association and other organizations representing various branches of the army. These men not only serve with the reserve forces, but are also in constant contact with the active forces.
Surely at a time like this, recognizing the special qualifications of those who presented this report, not one of us has any right to ignore the full significance of the statement that some of the assurances we have been receiving are a travesty of the facts.
It is our duty to have the facts. We are not getting them. As representatives of the people of Canada, in these extremely critical times we have no right to accept anything less than the facts. We have no right to accept bland assurances that our defence forces are being fully manned, when we have before us the unqualified statement from those who know best that they are not, and that statements in regard to the strength of our reserve forces are a travesty of the facts.
We have repeatedly urged in the past that a special committee of the house be set up to consider national defence and to obtain the facts. We have no thought, and never have had any thought, that such a committee would supplant the responsibility of the government. A similar committee set up to deal with external affairs has never been charged with usurping that authority. And, after all, the Secretary of State for External Affairs deals with secret information, just as does the Minister of National Defence. At a time when national defence is the most important subject before us, we are told by a body of officers, whose words cannot be challenged, that some very important assurances are only a travesty of the fapts. For that reason and for the many other obvious reasons why such a committee is desirable at this time, I do urge upon the Prime Minister that he assure us this afternoon that a committee on national defence will be set up immediately, _so that the members of the House of Commons may be sure that defence preparations are proceeding with the utmost possible speed. In the face of a statement of this kind by those who know best, I submit that we have no right to accept the broad generalities of ministerial statements which we have been forced to accept in the past by majority votes in this house.
Now let me turn to the financial consequences of the expenditures on defence. What we have already spent is only a fraction of what we are going to be asked to spend. Nevertheless the people of this country are already feeling the serious consequences of this dislocation of our normal free economy. The cost of living continues to mount, and inflation is threatening the savings of our people as those savings have 

not been threatened at any previous time in the life of any one of us. There is nothing in the speech from the throne to indicate what measures the government intends to adopt. Different expectations have been drawn from the very general terms used, and other expectations will be aroused by the comments made by the Minister of Finance this afternoon. This very uncertainty in itself is contributing tremendously to the rapidly mounting spiral of inflation in this country.
When we met last September the government took the widest possible powers to deal with this situation. It was pointed out that those powers were required to deal with the possible consequences of the efforts which were going to be made. The government has failed to exercise those powers. The very obvious fact, however, that people have come to expect controls of various kinds, with resulting shortages of various products, has in itself driven up prices by an artificial demand created by the uncertainty as to what will be available in the months ahead.
We all know that a very large contributing factor to inflation is a buying demand which absorbs available supplies and creates a shortage which encourages buyers to pay more than should be paid. The government is directly responsible for this artificial buying demand. From the day it obtained special powers last September there has been constant reference to controls of different kinds, which has in turn created the impression that sooner or later there will be such controls. I most earnestly impress upon the Prime Minister the desirability of a statement which will remove the uncertainty on this very important subject. I hope he will tell us this afternoon whether it is the intention of the government to introduce a plan of controls, as was hinted by the Minister of Finance this afternoon, and if so, what the nature and extent of those controls will be. If this is not done, the uncertainty which everyone knows is a very real factor in the present inflationary spiral will continue until the government has made its position cigar one way or the other.
There are other ways in which the government is contributing to inflation. In spite of the statements which have been made, the government has not yet taken effective steps to cut down its expenditures on non-defence requirements. It has not yet taken the antiinflationary action which it can take in its financial operations. It has greatly reduced available supplies of many kinds through large purchases for the Department of National Defence and defence production, without doing anything to restrain the consequences of that artificial pressure upon

the remaining supplies of the same kind still available to the public.
One of the most important steps in checking inflation undoubtedly is the elimination of all unnecessary non-defence expenditure. We have urged before, and I urge again, that a royal commission be appointed, or a special committee with similar powers, for the purpose of going fully into the cost of government, with the idea of reducing all non-essential expenditure. I hope we shall not be told that such an inquiry cannot be conducted, or that it would not be effective. Such a commission did produce positive results in the United States. I am certain that we are not so different from them, and that the normal human frailties are not so remote from us, that a similar inquiry would not produce equally positive results here. I urge the Prime Minister to assure us that he will agree to the appointment of such a commission or committee. The findings of such an inquiry would be of great assistance to him and to the government generally at a time when such assistance is so greatly needed.
High though wages in Canada may be, the cost of living has already risen so high that our people are finding it most difficult to make ends meet. When we realize that taxes necessary to produce the money for national defence will have their impact upon every family, whether in the form of income taxes or other levies, the necessity for dealing promptly and effectively with this situation becomes increasingly urgent.
I wish to emphasize once again the very critical situation which is resulting from the steadily lessening value of our dollar. As inflation reduces its real value, now at a point little more than half what it was ten years ago, the consequences for those living on pensions, annuities of various kinds, or small fixed incomes, is truly heartbreaking. Inflation of this kind not only reduces the living standard of all those affected in this way, but tends to destroy confidence in the very system we are doing so much to preserve. It tends to raise questions about insurance, bank deposits and the savings which have been the very foundation of that measure of personal security which can be established by the initiative of our people.
Until we know what the government intends to do in the matter of national defence and the other problems before us, it is not possible to discuss this subject in further detail. I urge the Prime Minister to let us know what they have in mind, so that the doubts and uncertainties which are in themselves creating inflation may be stopped, for the purpose of giving some measure of confidence to those who are already in such great distress.
The Address-Mr. Drew
There is another aspect of this world struggle between the Soviet empire and the free nations which I think requires constant and the strongest possible emphasis. We are told, and with great truth, that poverty and low standards of living are in themselves an encouragement to communism. Most certainly it is part of this struggle to help in every way we can to build up the living standards and the social consciousness of those nations which need our help so much. I am confident that members of this house will support all practical measures which will bring hope and encouragement to those who are in such great distress in so many parts of the world.
There is more to this struggle, however, and particularly in the more prosperous nations, than the material advantages which life can offer. If democracy has nothing better to offer than a higher material standard of living, then it would seem that if tyranny, whether it be communism or otherwise, can offer equally high material advantages in any country, it will lose some of the apparent dangers associated with it, and the arguments against communism will lose some of their strength.
I am sure we all believe that freedom itself gives vigour to life and an encouragement to personal initiative which makes it an infinitely more efficient way of life than any form of tyranny can ever be. But we are trying to do something more than raise the material living standards of our people, important though that is to all of them. The fundamental difference between communism and our way of life is that our form of democracy is based upon religion and the equality of every human being before God. Once we disregard that concept of our society we disregard the great driving power which revived democracy out of the darkness of the middle ages, and which has given to our laws and to our standards of life those ethical principles which have made democracy the highest form of government known to mankind.
If there is one lesson which it seems to me we should have learned from the events of the past two months, it is this. The communist forces in Korea have shown themselves to be no dull, downtrodden slaves. On the contrary, every report from Korea speaks of the fanaticism with which they have fought. Granted they have been driven into battle under the threat of death, and that they have been given no choice but to fight, the fact remains that in the minds of all too many of them there is a real faith in the cruel, godless religion which has its centre in Moscow. Young people brought up under
24	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Drew that regime, and under the other communist regimes, with no knowledge of the outside world and no understanding of how we live, are easy victims of communist propaganda that their way of life is best and that the people of the free world, whom they have never seen and with whom they have never had any real contact, are in fact living in fear and poverty.
It would be well for us to examine the pattern of communist leadership and the pattern of what they are teaching their young people. It would be well for us to try to understand what it is that inspires to such fanatical efforts so many of those young people who have been brought up under communist rule. They do not praise their system because it gives them more material advantages. They praise it because they believe it is leading them to victory. They praise it because they believe it is leading to the Soviet domination of the whole world. In the last great annual parade of armed forces across Red square, when the tanks were roaring across that parade ground in Moscow, the radio commentators, describing to their own people the power and glory of Soviet arms, burst into these ecstatic words:
Spring has come. It has come here; it has come in China, in the new streets of Warsaw, in Prague, in the gardens of Bucharest, in the villages of Bulgaria. The banner of victory flies over us. The spring of humanity is with us. It is nearing the workers' suburbs of Paris; it is marching like a master upon the piazzas of Rome. In Calcutta, Karachi and Bombay, it sings of freedom. Our Stalin, whose hand guides the spring of humanity, is leading us to victory.
Those are stirring words to people who hear little else and have no chance to learn what our way of life means to us. This appeal to victory is the psychological appeal they are now employing with such effect, particularly in a country such as Russia, where during their entire lives the younger generation have known nothing else. Those who remember seeing demonstrations of nazi power in the years before the last war will remember the almost hypnotic effect when great masses of German people shouted together at the top of their voices, "Sieg Heil." "Hail Victory" they were shouting, in the firm belief that victory would soon be within their grasp. That was a very considerable part of the driving power that made the nazis so effective in the early days of the last world war, and that same psychological appeal is going out today to the youth of Russia and other communist countries. It goes out to those who have had withheld from them what freedom really means.
To meet this threat, not only of Soviet arms and manpower but also of Soviet propaganda, we must create in our own country and in


the other free nations a still greater and more dynamic faith in a system which has everything to offer, both in this life and afterward. We too must create an abiding faith in victory, faith that the spirit of free peoples, joined in a great world partnership, can still preserve peace and those decent ideals which religion alone can give. The future of Canada and of every other country depends upon the character of its people. We must build that character in every way we can- in our homes, our churches and our schools; and we can do much here in parliament to advance this great cause.
In all earnestness I urge the government to give the people that faith and confidence which will come to them when they believe they are being given all the facts and are asked to share not only the responsibility but the knowledge the government has of the tasks before us. I urge the government to appeal to our people not merely to accept in a spirit of painful necessity the things they will be asked to do, but to accept what may be required of them as service in the greatest cause that has ever presented a challenge to free men and women in the long history of mankind. I urge the government in all earnestness to appeal to the highest motives of our people. Give them a clarion call to service. I am sure they will respond.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon):
That the following words be added to the address;
"We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed
(1)	to give this nation leadership in the face of the present grave danger; and
(2)	to bring into being forces necessary to enable Canada to defend itself and discharge its international obligations; and
(3)	to take effective measures to combat inflation and the rapidly rising cost of living."


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, first of all I
wish to thank the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and in fact all my colleagues in the house for the good wishes they have expressed to me on the occasion of this, my birthday; though, like many others, the number of birthdays now is almost something to cause a little misgiving.
I should like also to join the leader of the opposition in extending congratulations to the mover (Mr. McMillan) and seconder (Mr. Breton) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I think a special word of congratulation is due them because, as newly elected members, they have delivered their maiden speeches. To speak for the first time in this house is a pretty trying experience under any circumstances. When such an event takes place upon one's arrival, after

most of his colleagues have been here for a few sessions, the difficulties become even more serious. I am sure, however, that we are proud, and that the constituents of the hon. gentlemen who moved and seconded the address are also proud, of the manner in which they acquitted themselves. They spoke with distinction and impressiveness, and they made constructive suggestions. I think it will be an advantage for us to hear from them quite frequently in the course of our debates.
The hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan) has already served his country well. After graduating from Queen's university as a gold medallist in medicine, he spent three years overseas with his colleague, the hon. member for Lanark, to whom he referred in such gracious terms yesterday, in the Canadian army medical corps during world war I. Since 1920, following a year of medical work in New York, he has practised medicine at Thorold. He has been president of the Lincoln county medical association, and a member of the board of governors of the St. Catharines general hospital where he is now assistant chief surgeon and vice-chairman of the staff. His recent election to parliament was not the first time the hon. gentleman had been elected to public office. As mayor, and as a member of the public utilities commission of Thorold, he had already established for himself a reputation for service in public affairs. I am sure that his professional knowledge and practical experience will be of value to us in the consideration of many of the problems with which we shall have to deal in this house.
The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Breton) is one of the younger members of the house, but those of us who were able to follow him in both languages heard, I think it is fair to say, an address of real merit. After completing his studies at the university of Montreal, the hon. member was admitted to the bar in 1932. He has since practised his profession in Joliette. He comes to the House of Commons with a sound reputation arising out of his achievements at the bar. I think we would all wish to say to him that he has added to that reputation by the manner in which he seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I believe it is fair to say that the achievements of both these hon. members will serve as a fine introduction to the consideration and discussion of the many questions with which we shall have to deal during the session. Their speeches were highly gratifying to us in their demonstration of the ability which these newly elected members
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent have brought to parliament. I should like to extend to them very sincere congratulations.
As the house is aware, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is with us because his predecessor was chosen as a party leader in the provincial field. More recently another hon. member has been similarly honoured. I am sure all of us, regardless of party, will join in personal congratulations to the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Thomson). This practice of moving from one field to the other is not new. In one of the provinces both the premier and the leader of the opposition went from this house to the positions they now occupy. While there is much to be gained by keeping federal and provincial politics apart, I do not believe any of us really complain about these federal-provincial interchanges, particularly since the traffic has not been all one way. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) had been premiers of their provinces. The leader of the opposition had been the premier of the great province of Ontario before coming to this house. The premier of one of the maritime provinces came from the premiership to this house, and later went back to the premiership of his province. I believe these exchanges show that Canadians who have the ability and the will to serve their fellow citizens are willing to serve them in any capacity in which their fellow citizens think they will be of use to the community.
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition has complained that the speech from the throne is not very revealing. I noticed while the hon. gentleman was speaking that there were three of the important announcements in the speech from the throne that did not seem to have caught his attention, or to which at least he did not see fit to refer in his criticism. One was the announcement that we are to be asked early in the session to authorize Canadian participation in the integrated force being organized under the North Atlantic treaty. The next was the announcement that we are to be asked to approve substantially increased expenditures for defence. The third, which is of importance and which bears upon one of the matters discussed by the leader of the opposition, was the announcement that our approval would be sought for appropriate Canadian participation in the Colombo plan, and in technical assistance to the underdeveloped areas. These are matters of some consequence, and I believe they indicate the manner in which the government intends to recommend to this house that the gravity of the present situation should be recognized.

The Address-Mr. St. Laurent
I must admit that the leader of the opposition was quite fair in his reference to the rather glib remark I made on one occasion at a press conference that there had been issued a policy by Lloyd's against the probability of an international meeting in Toronto, planned for next September, being interfered with by war. He did suggest in his remarks that he did not think it was any choice of mine that so much had been made of it in the newspapers and over the radio. Hon. members know that my considered views about the world situation were expressed in the new year's message which was recorded for broadcasting to the people of Canada before I left on December 31 to attend the meeting of the commonwealth prime ministers in London.
My considered views were there expressed. They are still my views. I shall not read them into the record, but I think the substance can be put in just about four sentences. I said then, and I really believe, that the situation at the opening of 1951 was even more serious than it was at the opening of 1950. I stated then, and I firmly believe, that that is why we must increase our efforts to prevent a world war. In spite of the gravity of the situation I do not believe a world war is inevitable. I do not believe that a world war is inevitable because of my confidence in the willingness and ability of the peoples of the twelve nations grouped together under the North Atlantic treaty to build up their strength to a point where aggression will not be attempted against them.
I do not believe we can fold our arms and expect that we shall not have war. I believe, however, that the people of this nation and the people of the other eleven nations who have banded themselves together under the terms of the North Atlantic treaty are willing and able to do what will be necessary to constitute an effective deterrent against the probability of aggression. We knew that a supreme commander had been appointed. Although it was known to all the people of Canada, we believed nevertheless it was an event of sufficient importance to be mentioned in His Excellency's speech to us at the opening of parliament. We regarded it as one of those indications of the progress that was being made in organizing north Atlantic strength against the risk of aggression.
From our own experience prior to the appointment of a supreme commander, we knew that there had been much comparing of good things to do in an attempt to decide which were preferable; but up to the time

a supreme commander was selected and recognized by the governments of the twelve nations, it was quite difficult to find anyone to take the responsibility of saying, "Among the good things that might be done, this is the one we are going to do and we are going to do it now." I think the choice of a supreme commander for the marshalling and organizing of the forces of the twelve nations banded together under that treaty will make for dispatch; and dispatch is required if we are to justify our faith, belief and trust that we shall soon have that strength required to make aggression unattractive to any who might be tempted to start it against us.
Not only has a supreme commander been chosen, but the supreme commander has visited the capitals of the twelve nations that are signatories of the North Atlantic treaty. He has reported to us here the impressions he gathered overseas and he has now reported to the congress of the United States the impressions he gathered in his visits to the twelve nations. Just as I came into the chamber I was handed a dispatch summarizing some of the statements the supreme commander had made in his report of an hour's duration to the United States congress:
Eisenhower asked this question:	"Why are we
frightened of dictatorial governments?" He said the only thing such governments have is unity of purpose, but it is "enforced by a gun in the kidneys."
That is not the kind of unity of purpose that is going to prevail among the peoples of the twelve nations that are signatories to the North Atlantic treaty.
Repeatedly Eisenhower emphasized that the proposed build-up of forces in Europe is aimed at keeping the peace.
It is because I believe that such is the real purpose of the free peoples of these twelve nations that I still venture to express the confident hope that we shall not have to indulge in a third catastrophic world war. I believe that the manpower, the know-how, the industrial potential and the natural resources available to the people of those twelve nations are such that if we had the misfortune to become involved in a third world war we would still win; but the cost of doing so would be so terrible that it is still my hope and my confident belief that it can be prevented. The price we shall have to pay to ensure its avoidance is going to be a heavy one and it is mounting constantly. The proposals the government will have to make in order to carry out the declarations contained in the speech from the throne will be brought to the attention of this house, Mr. Speaker, and they will, I am sure, justify the

assertions that I am making that the cost is going to be a heavy one; it is one that is going to be felt by every one of us and by every one of the free men and women in the other eleven nations that are banded together to do their share in this joint undertaking. What we shall be asking parliament to authorize will not be aid or assistance to anybody else. It will be something required by ourselves for the purpose of doing our part in building up this joint strength which is required to fulfil an undertaking that no one of us alone could fulfil and one that can be fulfilled only by the full co-operative efforts of all of us.
Only within the last few hours we read the report of a similar statement made in the parliament of Britain by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom as to the extent and the acceleration of the military effort they are going to make as their part of this upbuilding of our united strength. We know what is being contemplated by our neighbours to the south and we know what has been placed before the supreme commander by the governments of the other Atlantic nations. I am sure that the people of our country wish us to do our part in the upbuilding of that united strength which we hope will be a sufficient deterrent to prevent the necessity of winning a third world war.
To some sincere, patriotic Canadians it would appear that the first and most important thing to do would be to have in force in this country some form of selective service, some form of conscription of manpower, to bring large numbers of armed forces in being and to place them in the field ready to meet an enemy. There are others who believe, with equal sincerity, that to resort, at the present time, to compulsory military service would be disastrous to the Canadian economy. The view of the government-and it is my own-does not coincide with either of those extreme points of view. My attitude in this respect has been, I realize, a source of some uneasiness to some good Canadians throughout this country because of my race, the part of Canada from which I come, my religious beliefs, and so forth. But I think I can assure them that they are quite mistaken, and that is something those who are not my friends or supporters in my own native province have long realized.
I do not know how many hon. members had brought to their attention an article which was published in Le Devoir on October 24, 1950, in which their readers were being warned against me because of the facts to which this article referred. The writer recalled that:
Conscription is an issue one does not broach without distaste or even without disgust. For a
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent quarter of a century, Quebec Liberals exploited it before making it a part of their program. Conservatives used it as an instrument of hatred to set other provinces against Quebec where so-called equality of sacrifice was not accepted.
That is underscored in the article. Then it went on:
The French Canadian Liberal leaders of 1939 had an anti-conscription record. Lapointe and Cardin had formally committed themselves hundreds of times in public. Mr. King had had to give them pledges. Today, the situation is altogether different. Mr. Louis St. Laurent was elected in 1942 without concealing his opinions. He has not changed since. His convictions are all the more dangerous for being more honest and generally more sincere. Mr. St. Laurent will resist a conscription measure only so long as he believes it will be inadvisable or ineffective. In principle he has no objection to it.
Then they go on and say:
His policy leads straight in that direction.
Well, I was not at all offended at the terms of that article. So far as I am concerned, this is not a matter which can or should be decided on sentimental grounds. It is one which should be decided on its merits, and strictly on its merits, and with regard to what will make for the efficiency and the effectiveness of our contribution to the joint efforts that have to be put forth by the twelve nations banded together.
Though I do not go along with Le Devoir, I do not go along either with the Globe and Mail. The Globe and Mail on January 31, only yesterday, said that what was wanted was a declaration that parliament would be asked to give approval to a plan for national selective service. It said:
Selective service probably will involve conscription for the fighting forces. If it does there will be a national sense of equity.
Then it goes on:
Through two wars the people of Quebec, and on their account Roman Catholics generally, were blamed for the rejection of military conscription.
It continues:
Religion can no longer be made the excuse for failing to do what must be done, and sharing as equitably as possible the burdens of the doing. Foremost among the organized foes of the communist conquest is the Roman Catholic church.
This is not a matter of religion, nor a matter to be decided on the basis of religion, and I deprecate appeals of that kind for or against national selective service from any quarter. Let us be men, and let us face realities and do what we think will be the most efficient and the most effective as our contribution to the upbuilding of those international forces. It will be for us to determine what is the total volume of the effort this nation can contribute to this pool of combined forces, and it will be for us and for our partners together to determine what is the best way in which each nation can make its most effective contribution to that pool of joint strength.

The Address-Mr. St. Laurent
We know that the cost to us of maintaining one man on European soil, as part of the integrated army, is much more than the cost to the Europeans themselves of maintaining and equipping one man there. And we know that, in the production of equipment, we can get for every dollar expended as much as can be got from any dollar expended anywhere in the world, and perhaps more. We believe, as General Eisenhower is reported to have submitted in his report to congress today, that the big need of western Europe at this time is for arms rather than for troops.
For weeks we have been discussing the plans that would be put before you for your approval at this session of parliament, and we have been endeavouring to obtain the best possible information as to the most effective way in which our contribution can be made. So far there has been brought to my attention nothing that would indicate that the institution of national selective service at this time would be beneficial. On the contrary, the information we have obtained is that it would hamper what is being done at this moment. Now, that does not mean that the situation cannot change, and it does not mean that if and when it does change there will not be changes in the manner in which our resources will be contributed to this pool of international strength. But those changes will not be recommended by this government on any sentimental grounds because of any appeals on a racial or religious basis, but on their actual effective value to the joint strength of the combined forces of the North Atlantic alliance.
The leader of the opposition has said that he did not think the people of Canada would begrudge the expenditure of dollars provided that they believed they were being wisely expended; and with that I agree. And I fully agree with the hon. gentleman that no burden should be placed upon the Canadian people that is not represented by wise and efficient expenditures of the money that is produced from the burden itself. But I cannot bring myself to agree with the hon. gentleman that it would be wise at this time to set up a defence committee and to bring before it those who are engaged in the preparing and implementing of military plans that have to be carried out. I imagine the hon. member's views are still the same as those he expressed in the house on September 7 of last year, at which time he said, as reported at page 388 of Hansard:
These highly trained officers, with long military experience in the different branches of the service, are men for whose opinions we have high regard, as we have for the officers under them. But has the Minister of National Defence followed the advice of the chiefs of staff? Has he? There is

reason to believe he has not done so entirely, because I find, for instance, a press report in the Ottawa Journal-
And so on. And then, a little further on:
We should like to hear from the chiefs of staff whether they were pointing out that we did not have adequate forces for the defence of Canada, that we needed more money for that purpose, and that we needed to step up our training. Unless we hear their statements to the contrary, I think that is a logical conclusion from these reports.
Well, I do not think that is the way in which constitutional government is carried out under traditional British practice. The government takes the responsibility, under that practice, of formulating policy and of exposing it to parliament. If parliament is not satisfied, then it is the privilege of parliament to dismiss that government and to get a different one. But it is not the privilege of parliament to get the chiefs of staff or any of the others who, at times, are described as bureaucrats by hon. members across the way, to disclose the advice to which the government is entitled in formulating policy.
There can be no objection to obtaining from the responsible ministers full information as to what they plan to do, what they are doing and how they are doing it, full information as to how every cent of every dollar appropriated for national defence is being expended. But we are not prepared to accept the urging of the leader of the opposition and to set up a committee before which the chiefs of staff or the other military advisers of the minister can be brought so as to ascertain from them whether all or only part of the recommendations made by them have been incorporated in the policy the minister takes the responsibility of submitting for the approval or disapproval of parliament.
The leader of the opposition has dealt with inflation. He is concerned-and so are we- for all those who have savings of one kind or another, whether from pensions or from income upon bonds they purchased either during the course of the last war or following it. However, in opening his speech the hon. member was very insistent in his statement that in our international policies we had to allow our great neighbour to the south to take the lead. That may be questionable. We hope

and up to the present time our hopes have been	realized-that the ultimate
decisions of our powerful neighbours to the south in international affairs will all be such that we shall be able to accept them on their merits, and not merely because they are their policies.
We have to examine those policies on their merits. We have to look at them from the

angle of Canadian interests and from the angle of Canada's responsibility not only to its neighbour to the south but to the whole community of free men and women throughout the world.
The repercussions, willy-nilly, of the economic policies of our neighbour on this continent are felt very greatly in this country of ours. It is not easy, even though it might be desirable, to have greater certainty in that regard. It is not easy at any time to be certain of what will happen in the economic field among our population of between fourteen and fifteen millions as a consequence of what is happening just south of us in a country with a population of about 150 million. That is why we are constantly considering the situation as it develops, and why we feel it is not a course of despondency or despair to feel that we cannot prevent a degree of inflation here somewhat approaching that prevailing in the country to the south of us. To prevent it, we would have to try to enclose our economy in an impervious wall that, under present conditions, would not be accepted by a majority of the Canadian people.
In this connection hon. gentlemen opposite should remember the speeches they made about exchange control and other forms of control at a time when we found that, for the stability of the Canadian economy, it was necessary for us to maintain them, before suggesting that we are being too laggard in resorting, under present conditions, to other and no more acceptable forms of control.
The subject is one of grave concern to all of us. I am sure that we probably have lapses of memory such as those which I am indicating have been experienced by my hon. friends across the way. It may be that our thinking is not always strictly consistent with what we have preached and attempted to practise in the past. But I can assure the house that we are attempting, in good faith and without regard to any special class or any special interests, to do for the majority of the Canadian people that which that majority will feel justifies the confidence they are still extending to us in these difficult times.
We may make mistakes. If and when we do I am sure hon. gentlemen opposite will not fail to point them out. When they become sufficiently obvious to make a majority of the Canadian people feel that they are not justified in having further confidence in our ability to cope with difficult situations, then there will be an opportunity for others to implement different policies.
Though certainty in these matters would be very pleasant to achieve, we feel that it is wise to proceed cautiously so that we would
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent not too often have to undo what has been recently done. As was mentioned; this afternoon we provided1 import controls on a certain commodity and within a very short time we found that they were not really necessary and that, instead, they were embarrassing. We do not like to have to backtrack. Whenever it can be done we are going to endeavour to proceed with dispatch, but with sufficient caution, to discharge the responsibilities we feel we have towards the whole of the Canadian public. We will seek, by the legislation forecast in the speech from the throne, to secure powers additional to those the governor in council already has. By proclaiming the War Measures Act on the ground of apprehended war we could have all those powers, but we prefer to leave it to parliament to say whether there is a sufficient emergency to justify a departure from regular constitutional procedure and the regular constitutional distribution of powers between the federal and provincial authorities.
That legislation will be submitted to parliament at the earliest possible opportunity, and if and when it is passed there will then be the possibility of providing such controls as it may become apparent would be beneficial, and of providing for their proper administration and enforcement. I repeat, "enforcement". There cannot be enforcement in a country like ours against the feeling of a majority of the people of what is right and what is wrong. Perhaps we shall have to follow the advice of the leader of the opposition and make those clarion calls that will create in the population the realization of an urgency justifying measures that will push them around, because after all that is what controls amount to.
It is not easy to maintain the appropriate balance. The leader of the opposition, no more than I, would wish to make statements that would be frightening, that would work our people up to an unjustified pitch of anxiety and fervour. On the other hand, there must be a sober realization by all of us that we can prevent war only by doing our full share in that which is apparently going to be done in full share by each and every one of our associates. I still believe that the Canadian public will wish us to do what is required so that we may still have grounds for confident hopes that the necessity of waging and winning a third world war will not be forced upon this generation.
Mr. M. J. Cold well (Roseiown-Biggar): Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to associate myself with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and other members who have today congratulated the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) upon his sixty-ninth birthday. I
30	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Coldwell notice that he thanked in advance some of us who did not have the opportunity previously to accord our congratulations. I am very happy to do so, and I hope he may long be spared, if not as Prime Minister, to enjoy a well deserved further span of years.
I should also like to say to the mover (Mr. McMillan) and the seconder (Mr. Breton) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne that those of us who have been here a good many years can appreciate the difficulties under which they laboured yesterday. For two members coming into the house for the first time and rising in their places to make major speeches, I think they acquitted themselves exceptionally well. On behalf of myself and my colleagues I have great pleasure in congratulating them upon the excellent showing they made yesterday, and I hope they will often participate in the debates of the house.
The speech from the throne contains a great deal of material for thought, and foreshadows, I should think, a very important and interesting session of parliament. As we would expect it to do, it records a deterioration in the international situation. Unlike the leader of the opposition, I am going to devote some attention to the international situation largely because the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) is going to speak tomorrow and I should like to place certain criticisms before him this afternoon. I am going to take this opportunity to express approval of the decision made last summer to invite opposition members to attend sessions of the general assembly. I think that is good for the members who go there. I think it is good for our respective parties in the house. Indeed I think it is good for the country generally. It gives to members of the house, through their party representatives who attend these conferences, a more intimate knowledge of the developments and important events that take place there and the policies that Canada follows at such conferences.
Indeed it does something else. It enables parliament and the country to achieve a considerable approach to unanimity regarding grave issues which may affect not only our own people but millions of other people all over the world. Of course there may arise differences in methods of achievement, differences in the immediate objectives; but I think I can say that, in spite of any differences that we may express or that I may express this afternoon, there is no difference in the determination of each and: every one of us in the house to protect and preserve our people and our country from the present menace of totalitarianism. About that 

determination there must of necessity be unanimity. As I have already said, that unanimity should be obvious not only in this house but all over the country.
To get such unanimity something is required, and that is a knowledge of the events that, are taking place and an understanding of what they involve. Here I think members of parliament, the government and all agencies of public information in this country and everywhere else have particular responsibilities. I do not think that members of parliament, either individually or collectively, or the government either, have given enough attention to informing public opinion in this country sufficiently of the events that are taking place, and of what we should be doing to meet the threats that are now so apparent in world affairs.
What is true of individual members of the house, or of members collectively and the government, I think is equally true of our public information agencies. In my opinion the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation did a first-class job in reporting all the major discussions at the United Nations. Their rebroadcasts of important speeches by our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and leading members of other delegations at the United Nations, the United Nations documentaries that we heard from the assembly from time to time, and so on, I think were exceptionally useful. If I may say so I think the commentaries by various commentators, by Mr. Peter Stursberg of the C.B.C., by Mr. Walter O'Hearn of the Montreal Star and others, were exceedingly valuable in helping the people of Canada understand some of the matters being discussed before the committees of the United Nations, and particularly before the first or political committee.
I regret that the news-gathering agencies of the Canadian newspapers generally were not adequately represented at the United Nations. From my observations the great co-operative news-gathering agency of the daily newspapers of Canada, the Canadian Press, had no representative there, at least for any length of time. The commercial organization, British United Press, as far as I know had no representative there. The result was that but for the agencies I have already mentioned, particularly the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the people of Canada had to rely almost entirely upon the commentaries and commentators and columnists who write from day to day in United States newspapers, many of whose articles are syndicated in some of our large Canadian newspapers. There were, of course, one or two notable exceptions as far as the daily newspapers were concerned. A moment

ago I mentioned what I considered to be the valuable job done by Mr. Walter O'Hearn in commenting upon the work of the United Nations, and of course he was maintained there throughout by one of our great daily newspapers, the Montreal Star, to which he reported daily. As far as the great co-operative news-gathering agencies of Canada were concerned, however, their representatives were mostly conspicuous by their absence. I regard this as a reflection upon the press of Canada and indeed upon our country generally, because we have a right to expect better service than that from our national news agencies when such difficult and important matters are being considered by the United Nations.
I believe this led to the confusion which I found in the country concerning some of the matters before the United Nations; particularly to confusion in the early fall as to the considerations leading up to the decision by the United Nations to stop the aggression which occurred in Korea last June. Too little information was available to the Canadian people last autumn as these grave events developed. As I have said already, our news came mainly from United States sources. As the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has stated, the people of Canada hope that war is neither imminent nor inevitable; but if we should become involved in a major struggle in the months or years ahead I think it is important that our people should understand what has led up to that situation.
I am certain of this, that least of all do the Canadian people want war with the Chinese, whom I think most Canadians regard as a long-suffering, exploited people who are now groping for a better life. That leadership in China has come under communist control is, I think, a graver reflection upon the democracies who, had they taken time by the forelock and pursued essentially different policies a few years ago, might have had the leadership which has been seized by the representatives of the Soviet union in that great country of 450 million people.
For this reason I regret the adoption of the resolution that was passed by the first committee of the United Nations the day before yesterday, and which I believe is before the assembly today. I think a condemnatory resolution of that kind may interfere with the very worth-while further attempts to obtain an immediate cease-fire in Korea. I am also afraid that this resolution having been approved, it will be followed by intensified bitterness and demands for the institution of sanctions which, if approved, I fear will push China more and more into the orbit of the Soviet union.
The Address-Mr. Coldwell
From what I hear and have read I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs very largely shares that view. At this point may I congratulate him on his part in endeavouring to continue negotiations, and the Prime Minister on his part in endeavouring to get a clarification of the more recent acceptance of proposals by Peking. At noon today I received my usual airmail copy of the Manchester Guardian Weekly, under date of January 25. Its very well informed correspondent in India discusses the situation in Asia and refers particularly to a rising bitterness even on the part of those who have sympathized and been more friendly with Britain and the rest of us in the past few years, because they feel that while we give underground-and I think that is the word that is used-support to India's attempts at further negotiations, we none the less adopt a different attitude in public when an important issue is to be resolved.
My view of the United Nations resolution regarding China, passed a couple of days ago, is pretty well stated in a resolution which was adopted by our C.C.F. national executive over last week end. Since it expresses my own view as well, I should like to put it on the record. It is not long, and reads as follows:
The C.C.F. is opposed to any step at the UN or elsewhere which will place further obstacles in the way of a negotiated settlement in Korea and Asia generally. For this reason it urges the Canadian government-
This, of course, was before the resolution was passed.
-to oppose the U.S. resolution now before fee United Nations which would brand the Chinese people's government as an aggressor. The C.C.F. believe that if the UN passed this resolution it would be in danger of sacrificing the friendship of a large proportion of the people of Asia, and of disrupting the unity of the free world.
The C.C.F. does not doubt that the invasion of Korea by the Chinese armies was unjustifiable and contrary to UN policy. But at this moment every effort must be made to prevent a general war. We must not give way to resentment or hysteria, or assume that war is inevitable.
Then it goes on, and I should like to put this on record because I wish to say something about it a little later.
As a further indication of Canada's good will towards the people of Asia, the C.C.F. proposes that the Canadian government make a gift to India of as substantial a quantity of wheat to aid in the alleviation of her grievous famine as transportation facilities will allow.
We recognized it should be noted that there were difficulties in transportation facilities to India.
We believe that the United Nations resolution before the assembly today, and which will undoubtedly be adopted, will make-I do not

The Address-Mr. Coldwell say may-a negotiated settlement more difficult. Certainly, it will delay it. At its best it will merely delay it, and at its worst it will make a negotiated settlement impossible. I feel that heed should have been paid to the last warning given to a like effect by Sir Benegal Rau, whose country understands the Asiatic opinion, and whose efforts for a peaceful settlement have been entirely consistent throughout. When I heard his very tired voice over the radio the other night making one last plea, I thought that it carried rather deep conviction with it. At any rate I was deeply impressed with it. Let us remember this, that India joined with the rest of us in recognizing that the invasion of South Korea by North Korea was an act of aggression. Subsequently, India gave warning that any close approach to the borders of Manchuria and the Yalu river would invite Chinese participation. In that, of course, she proved prophetic.
The minister of external affairs (Mr. Pearson), in his speech before the United Nations last Friday, January 26, put the view which we share. I am going to quote from that speech, because I have a verbatim copy of it before me. After discussing the Canadian position rather frankly, he says on page 13:
. . . we think the putting of such a resolution at this stage and in this form, when the possibilities of negotiation with the people's government of China are not, in our opinion, completely exhausted, to be premature and unwise.
In fairness to him I should like to continue and put the rest of the paragraph on the record, because I think I should.
Why then is the Canadian delegation voting for the draft resolution as a whole? In the first place, we are doing so because the main purport of this resolution, as we understand it, and certainly as the public in our own country will understand it, is to condemn the Chinese people's government for the assistance they have given the aggressors in Korea. We think that there is no shadow of doubt about this participation in aggression and we believe that the action of the Chinese people's government in this matter has been morally wrong and is to be condemned. The United Nations cannot ignore such a defiance of the principles upon which it is founded.
I agree that the United Nations cannot overlook a defiance of the principles upon which it was founded, but on the other hand there might be a time and a place when condemnation for violation of those principles should be made. The question is, had we reached that time? The minister himself said he regarded the resolution as premature and unwise. He asked for further assurance, and Sir Benegal Rau obtained it. Coupled with it there was a warning, I understand, said to be from the highest sources in Peking. Whether or not this is correct, the story came


over the air that Sir Benegal Rau had received that warning from none other than Mao Tse-tung, head of the Chinese government. The minister clearly counselled caution, and gave very good reasons for this caution.
Looking at his speech a little earlier, on page 12, we find he said this:
.	. the free world as a whole is now under a
menace far greater than anything offered by the Chinese regime in Peking, a menace which even that regime itself will, we hope, one day come to recognize and to resist, and that our main objective must be to hold ourselves prepared to meet that threat. We have certainly not accepted anything like the prospects of inevitable war with the Soviet union, and we are still ready to accept genuine conciliation with members of the Soviet union bloc. We cannot, however, close our eyes to the complicity of the Soviet union in the aggressive action of the North Koreans and the Chinese communists, their subjugation of neighbouring countries, their world-wide sabotage of peace, and the continuous instigation of a new war by their propaganda machines, disguised these days as propaganda for peace. It is for these reasons, for purely defensive reasons, that I feel we must remain on guard and not allow ourselves to be deliberately distracted into weakening skirmishes or open war with a country with which we have no basic grounds to quarrel.
I most thoroughly agree with that statement. It has seemed to me, and this view is shared by many of the people in this country and indeed across the world, that what we have actually done is to run into the grave danger of being distracted into weakening skirmishes or open war with a people with whom we have no basic grounds to quarrel. If it is true, and I believe it is, that "we cannot close our eyes to the complicity of the Soviet union in the aggressive action of the North Koreans and the Chinese communists," then on much the same grounds as the minister enunciated before the United Nations committee in regard to China, we could declare the Soviet union to be an aggressor; not an aggressor in precisely the same way but none the less an aggressor in provoking aggression by others on a much wider scale. Indeed such aggression is much more dangerous and much more widespread than the aggression committed by China. But be that as it may, even before the final vote was taken on Tuesday evening, January 30, the minister reiterated the same grave warning and the same opinion. After again outlining the considerations which had brought the Canadian delegation to vote "yes" on the resolution, he said this:
. . . we still feel that it is premature and unwise to confront the committee with the necessity for a decision on these facts at this particular moment and, as we see it, the methods of peaceful negotiation before condemnation have not yet been completely exhausted.

We find that even the minister had considerable doubts as to the wisdom of pressing this issue at this time.
Again may I refer to what the Manchester Guardian said in the issue which came to my desk at noon today. It pointed out that this growing bitterness in India was due to the fact that India was taking the onus for the belief that was held by some other countries associated with India and that India was in danger of "taking the rap" for expressing those views and for voting in the manner in which she did. We have all noted in the press-and I think it was most regrettable- a suggestion made in the United States that because of India's attitude she should be denied the immediate granting of the large quantity of wheat for which she has been asking and which she needs in order to prevent widespread misery and famine as a result of crop failures in that land. Because we believe that the resolution which Canada supported was "both premature and unwise", and because we fear that it will result in driving China more completely into the Soviet orbit and will jeopardize the friendship of a large proportion of the 550 million or 600 million people in southeast Asia, I am going to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that the following words be added to the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew):
We further regret that while Your Excellency's advisers have generally followed a constructive course in relation to the Korean dispute, they have in relation to the resolution branding China as an aggressor supported a course which is premature and unwise at this particular moment, and which should not have been pursued until the methods of peaceful negotiation had been completely exhausted.
As I said earlier, perhaps we can mitigate this danger of driving the Asiatic peoples into the arms of the Soviet union by endeavouring to send quantities of food to India and to do all that we can to promote the success of the plan to which the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) alluded a short time ago; I refer to the Colombo plan. I know that it has been said that we have not a sufficient amount of wheat of the right grade and in position. We have a good deal of frozen wheat, grade No. 5 and grade No. 6 which is used as feed. I am told that while it does not make the best of flour, grade No. 5 wheat will make flour; and for people who are starving, even grade No. 5 wheat would be most acceptable. If we cannot give a better grade of wheat, I think that this house and this country should give consideration to giving the best that we can give in order to show not only our friendship for
The Address-Mr. Coldwell India but also the desirability of stamping out the results of famine and of keeping close contact with this great Asiatic people.
We shall have an opportunity of saying more about the Colombo plan a little later, but right now I want to say that I think it is the most imaginative plan ever adopted by the commonwealth countries. It contemplates aid not only to the commonwealth countries in southeast Asia but to those countries that are outside of the commonwealth-I do not need to name them all, but I might name two or three such as Burma, Thailand and Indonesia-all of whose problems are similar to those facing the commonwealth countries in Asia.
As I said a moment ago, 570 million people or thereabouts-one-quarter of the world's population-are living in that part of the world outside of China. They have ancient cultures and philosophies and they provide a challenge to the democratic nations if we desire to prevent the spread of totalitarian communism and the influence of the Soviet union among them; for people are an easy prey to that kind of propaganda, whether it be of the communist or of the fascist type, when their stomachs are empty and their bodies are weak. Food and clothing, it seems to me, in this particular area are more important weapons of defence than guns, planes, and ships of war; although I am not saying for one moment that we must not also build up our defensive materiel as well. Today, after the destructive war with Japan, and if sanctions follow the naming of China as an aggressor, the suffering that already exists there will be intensified. May I say that, as far as China is concerned, sanctions will scarcely affect the main trade lines of China because China does not trade much with the west anyhow but trades largely with the Asian countries. If we attempt to bomb the centres in China, we must not forget that there is a Soviet-Chinese mutual assistance pact, and we may find ourselves faced with the effects of that pact. I am glad that the government is going to place before us proposals in conformity with the Colombo plan. I hope that the proposals, if they are sufficiently effective, will be supported by all parties in this house and, incidentally, by all the people throughout the country.
My time is limited but there are a few minutes left. I want to say this on the subject of defence which came up this afternoon. I was interested in what the Prime Minister said. I think his statement was a courageous one. It was probably in line with the needs of the country at this time; but I should like to add this to what he said this afternoon. Before we come to a conclusion on what we are going to do in regard to the raising of an

The Address-Mr. Coldwell army, in regard to industry, our resources, human and material, there should be a thorough appraisal of our resources, both human and material, in order that we might plan a really effective effort for our own defence, for the obligations that we have assumed in connection with other countries and for the defence of democracy across the world.
When we make such an appraisal we then can decide where our best contribution can be made. If war comes-and I do not think it is inevitable-it will be in Europe ultimately. Should we lose control of western Europe, which-if war came soon and with the defences that we are told are there-is a possibility, the industrial centres of Great Britain would be subjected to intense bombing and in all probability would be largely immobilized. Therefore, we have to consider what our best contribution would be under various circumstances that might arise.
We found of course that the raising of a large force suddenly in the autumn of 1939 was not very difficult, nor was the maintenance of industry, such as it was in 1939, difficult. Why? Because we had a very large amount of unemployment in the country. If my memory serves me, we had something like 400,000 people on relief at that time, and there was no strain on the economy at all in raising an army or in operating industry. As I believed then I believe now. I believed that a proper appraisal of our resources at that time would have guided us rather better than we were guided subsequently in the war that we declared in September, 1939. But in any event, whether one was right or wrong in that particular at that time, we are not at war at the moment. The government knows what obligations we are expected to assume; and it seems to me that the first step should be a thorough appraisal of our economic and human resources.
Because of the strain on the economy I want to say to the Prime Minister that I do not agree that the institution of price controls in the United States will be a sufficient safeguard for the standards of living of the Canadian people. The government will have to institute price controls.
The Prime Minister said that that could only be done if the people were in favour of it. Well, public opinion polls have shown in one instance that 75 per cent of the people interviewed were in favour of it. More recently, of course, rather smaller percentages have declared themselves in favour of the kind of controls suggested to them when they were asked the question a couple of months ago.

But again may I say-and I want to bring this to your attention before I close-if we are to have intelligent price controls the government should call together the representatives of the groups who are mainly interested in these controls, namely, representatives of the farmers-


Mr. Ferrie:: They don't want it.


Mr. Coldwell:: -representatives of the workers, representatives of business and representatives of some consumer organizations. When I say "representatives of these organizations", I mean people chosen by these organizations at least in a consultative committee, and endeavour to see whether we cannot relate to some degree at least prices and wages so that we may get some intelligent workable controls to which all our people would agree, and which will enable us to carry the people along without the difficulty that the Prime Minister apprehended when he was speaking a short time ago.
After all, if we are to have satisfactory controls the groups mainly interested in them are entitled to consultations, and not only consultations in separate groups, but consultation together in order that they may understand the viewpoints of one another.
Of course a great deal has been made of wage control. As a matter of fact you have wage control now to a very large extent, because in many of the great trades unions wages have been agreed upon for one year ahead and two years ahead, and yet prices continue to rise. You have control now of the farmer's returns to a very large degree in setting floor prices on some of the goods that he produces and ceilings in some of the arrangements that have been made. The only people who are free to do exactly what they like are the manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers. They have obviously increased prices over the last couple of months in order that they may circumvent price controls if they come into effect.
I am not going to give examples which have come to my knowledge over the last two or three months, but I have been told by retailers in this city, who have been buying goods that they were accustomed to buying from various wholesale concerns, that the prices have been pushed up, as they believed, to an unwarranted extent in anticipation that we may have some measure of price control and we might do what the United States did, although we did not know what the United States was going to do until a little while ago, namely, stabilize prices at the highest level. That will not do. We may have to use methods including subsidies to bring down real buying prices to some extent.

I have exceeded my time somewhat and therefore I must stop. If we can secure agreement among our people some other things will have to be done such as certain forms of taxation, excess profits taxes and so on. I am convinced that we can institute measures of control and we can organize our economy to benefit the Canadian people and to help us to do the job that we have to do and to take our share in defence of the democratic world.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, it is close to six o'clock, but I am not going to ask you to call it six o'clock because I feel that we should make use of every minute of our time.
Let me say at the outset that I appreciate this opportunity of joining with the other leaders on the opposition side of the house in extending to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) good wishes and felicitations on this the anniversary of his birthday. I did not rise on the orders of the day following the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) because I knew that this opportunity would be provided at some time today.
I find it a very pleasant duty today, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. In my opinion both speeches were sensible, down-to-earth attainments, and although fluent as both speakers were and very easy to listen to, the emphasis in each case was placed quite properly on the content rather than on the refinements of oratory. That is as it should be, in days like these when we are facing grave realities. It is unfortunate-and I am sure when I say this I speak for every member in the house- that at this time parliament meets under a cloud of world confusion and the fear of war. But, because it does so meet, it seems to me that this must be a time of courage, of mental honesty, straight thinking and plain speaking, without too much acrimony or recrimination. I believe the atmosphere and the dangers of these days make it necessary, too, that each of us representing the people across this country must do some earnest soul-searching. I shall try to do my part in facing up to the formula I have just laid out.
His Excellency's speech reminded me of what the clergyman said to the young bridegroom. I attended the wedding of a young friend of mine and, after the clergyman had tied the knot and while congratulations were being offered, he said to the bridegroom, "I think it is my prerogative in all such cases to give some good advice to both young people." To the bridegroom he said, "Young man, if you intend to get along well you
The Address-Mr. Low must always tell your wife the truth." Then, turning to the young bride he said, "But not necessarily all of it."
As I view the address I feel it is straightforward enough in what it does contain. However, at a time like this I do not think it is enough just to have carefully guarded allusions to the dangers that the people of Canada, in common with other free peoples of the world, are facing. At a time like this it seems to me that nothing less than the whole truth is good enough. The Canadian people must be roused to the fullest possible realization of the dangers they face from external sources as well as from those lurking within our borders here at home. It is only when they do fully realize those dangers that we can expect our people to rise to that effort they must make if this and the other free nations of the world are to survive.
It is my conviction that nothing less than survival is at stake today, the survival of free nations and free peoples. So that I may be perfectly fair, let me state that in two places in His Excellency's address references are made to the seriousness of the world situation. In the third paragraph we find these words:
The increased menace in the Far East reinforces the mounting evidence that communist imperialism is determined to dominate the world by force or the fear of force, and that the only hope of maintaining peace with freedom lies in the rapid increase of the combined strength of the free nations.
And then at a later point we find this:
The policies of the government are designed to prevent war, but the dangers of the international situation and the magnitude of the defence effort required as a deterrent have, in the opinion of my ministers, created an emergency situation.
Well, nothing is said in the address, nor can I read between the lines anything that would give us a clear picture of the state of preparedness or of unpreparedness of the free nations of the world, including our own country, to meet the challenge of these times.
Therefore, since no other speaker has done so this afternoon, I feel it my duty to place before hon. members and the people of Canada how I view the whole situation and what I think of the state of unpreparedness in which we and the world find ourselves today. When I continue speaking after the dinner recess I intend to go further than a mere examination of our physical, material and military state of preparation. These, of course, are important; but, important as they are, there are other phases which are vastly more important.
What about our moral and spiritual preparedness? Here is where the soul-searching I mentioned a while ago comes in. In the

The Address-Mr. Low interests of all of us I think it is essential that we Canadians-and I include myself- take a right good look at the whole picture, even if that picture proves to be an ugly one.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, before the dinner recess I had referred to the fact that the speech from the throne mentioned the government's conviction that the increased menace in the Far East reinforces the mounting evidence that communist imperialism is determined to dominate the world by war or fear of war, and that the only hope of maintaining peace with freedom lies in the rapid increase of the combined strength of the free nations. Let me tell the government and this house that for the past fifteen years we Social Crediters have been convinced that communist imperialism was determined to dominate the world by force. We have been saying so in the plainest possible language for all of that time. In addition we have stated publicly on numerous occasions that we believed' evil and perfidious men, many of whom were posing as our best friends, were devising communist imperialism and installing it in various countries as a definite policy for taking over economies and enslaving men simply to satisfy their own power hunger. We have not yet seen or heard anything that would cause us to change our minds in that regard. The blueprint has been there all along, and it has been clearly legible so that anybody could see and read it if they were interested in doing so.
Many of us are inclined to ask why it is that we are living under the shadow and the fear of war today. I think it is largely because we, the people of the world, either have been very busy sowing the seeds of war or have slept the months and years away refusing to see or to believe that some men and leaders of nations were sowing the same kind of seeds. Five years ago the United Nations organization was set up. At that time it was hailed far and wide as the great eradicator of war weeds in the gardens of the world. I was privileged to attend the session of the assembly of the United Nations in 1947, and again last autumn. I want to say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that I was very grateful for that opportunity. I was not able to stay either time as long as I should have liked, but I was able to stay long enough to make a good many observations and, I think, to get the atmosphere pretty well.

I should like to mention a few of the impressions that I came away with, particularly with regard to the state of preparedness of the member nations of the United Nations organization to meet the dangers that were confronting them. I confess I became convinced that the member nations of the United Nations were very largely in a state of unpreparedness. They were unprepared to take even a look at the cost of survival, let alone to pay the price of peace. I saw at the assembly a good many sincere people who were making an obviously earnest effort to build a temple of peace, but my heart certainly sank within me when it became clear that they were trying to build their structure on foundations of sand and with rotten timbers.
The nations of the world say they want peace, and yet they persist in those practices that make peace impossible and war a certainty. In that respect they remind me of the poor fellow who was told by his doctor that he had arteriosclerosis and consequently he would have to give up smoking his usual quota of cigars if he were not to die within a matter of months instead of perhaps years. The patient said he would rather die than try to quit. It was evident to me at Lake Success that altogether too many nations still believe that might is right and they try to practise it. Too many of them still violate the rules of human decency. They continue to place a very low value upon the individual human soul and they show a callous indifference to human suffering.
I thought a good many times, amongst other things, of the plight of such people as the Puerto Ricans. They are a numerous people for such a small and poor country, and yet no other country wants to take their surplus population or to extend to them the help they need if they are to live in anything but squalor. Is it any wonder then that some of them would take extreme means to draw the attention of the world to their plight? You all know of the misguided souls who did plot and attempt to carry out the assassination of the President of the United States.
What some nations are doing to their people today is almost indescribable. Besides training as many of their citizens as they can to hate and envy, they are practising upon their youth especially the most diabolical form of indoctrination. While I was at Lake Success I had quite a long chat with the administrator of UNICEF in one of the countries behind the iron curtain. She indicated that the governments were literally unscrewing the souls of those young people and putting back into them something that makes them mere automata capable of

doing only one thing, obeying their master's voice. How are the decent people of the world ever going to deal successfully with a generation like that, a generation that cannot listen to reason because they are not trained to reason, a generation that will not know right from wrong because they have never been taught to distinguish between them, a generation that cannot make up its own mind, that merely takes orders and executes them?
Then, Mr. Speaker, it must grieve the sincere and charitable people of the world, as it grieves me, to observe that some nations today will stoop to the use of hunger as a weapon to compel conformity to their own views and ideas. I know of no crime more grievous than to capitalize or attempt to capitalize upon the hunger and suffering of humanity in order to gain one's own ends. It must be clear to thinking people that such a practice is one of the rotten timbers that they would build into their temple of peace. If Canada ever becomes piqued because some other nation differs in opinion with us I hope we will be charitable and big enough not to refuse it that part of our surplus foods we can easily spare, especially if many of their people are going hungry.
Unfortunately the countries of the world persist in the same old trade practices. The creditor nations continue to show an insatiable appetite for favourable balances of trade, and then wonder why other people cannot pay their debts. Those nations show an unwillingness to balance their trade with the rest of the world, though that is the only way the other nations can get the wherewithal to pay their bills. Economic conquest through these favourable balances of trade continues apace. Too many nations think in terms of a good deal rather than in terms of what is fair and in the interests of humanity. The spirit of exploitation is still very much in evidence throughout the world, and from my observations tariff restrictions and restrictive customs practices still greatly impede the movement of goods across borders. And with all this there is an evident desire to get into the position where one country can export to other countries not only its surplus goods but its unemployment as well. It is true that the trade conferences of late years have made some attempts to get the world on a new footing in this regard, but they have merely tackled some of the inconsequen-tials, and have left strictly alone those most grievous, fundamentally iniquitous things such as the most-favoured-nation clauses of trade treaties, and so on.
At Lake Success I discovered the same old lack of faith in and suspicion of one another. There appeared to be the old determination,
The Address-Mr. Low in many instances, to save face. There is still much secret diplomacy, as we used to call it, and shifting of alliances, though today we give them different names such as Atlantic union, Pacific pact, or something of the kind. It appears that some countries still foster the belief that the best way to achieve a prominent position in the world and get along is to lie and cheat and steal, to mislead, to enslave and murder, to turn God out of His heaven and put Mammon in His place. In those countries the aim appears to be to make themselves physically and materially powerful, but spiritually and morally impotent.
I do not want to weary the house with many more of these things, so let me simply ask, what chance have the free nations of the world to build a temple of peace out of such stuff and upon such foundations as that? It is perfectly clear to me that there must be widespread repentance and turning back to the principles of right, decency and justice before we can possibly lay the foundation for peace in the world and abolish fear of war. The United Nations has failed to achieve peace in the world, so now we are basing our faith upon regional pacts. We have on paper plans for an integrated military force for the defence of Europe and the Atlantic states. We have a supreme commander, though as yet of course he cannot be said to have a force. I join with the Prime Minister in the hope that the twelve Atlantic nations will make all speed toward the integration of their strength. I share with him also the belief that if they do, and if we have faith in one another, in our combined strength we can put an end to aggression.
Canada, of course, must do her full part if this effort is to be successful. It is certainly clear that the world as a whole is in a state of unpreparedness. What about Canada? Are we prepared? That is the question we have to consider. The speech from the throne expresses concern over the need for the St. Lawrence seaway in relation to our security. In fairness I know our government cannot be blamed for the failure to develop that seaway, so let us hope those forces, if I may put it that way, that have been responsible for blocking the project, will repent of their ways and come to see that the security of all North America depends to a great extent indeed upon the development of the St. Lawrence seaway.
That excuse, of course, cannot be given for the fact that as yet we have not a trans-Canada highway. As a consequence we are unprepared to move equipment and supplies quickly through our country from east to west to meet any threat that might develop to any part of it. It is likely that we will

The Address-Mr. Low have to pay pretty dearly for our lack of vision and action in this respect. While I am speaking of highways and lack of vision, we have also neglected for far too long to provide highways and adequate means of communication in the great Canadian northwest. There we have metals, minerals and foodstuffs being produced, all of which are essential to our strength and our preparedness, but it is most difficult and costly under present circumstances to move them, and as a result any effort we may make to defend our country will not be as effective as it otherwise could be.
Canada continues to be largely dependent upon other countries for a good many of the essentials of life and of defence, things we could and should be producing for ourselves in the quantities we need. Here again it seems to me we have shown a lack of vision and of preparation for the future. It is perfectly true that since 1945 we have increased our steel production quite considerably, I believe to a fairly large extent through government assistance and leadership. But we are still far short of the production we need even in times of peace. One particular in which I think there was a sad lack of foresight was in the fact that the financial assistance provided by the government to the steel industry some time ago was extended only to the companies already producing steel. Apparently no assistance whatever was offered to induce the organization of new companies and help them finance these vast undertakings. I can see no valid reason why much of the iron ore presently going from the Steep Rock area to the United States should not be made into steel right at the coal beds of our own country, notably in southern Alberta. It is no further from western Ontario to the coal fields of southern Alberta than it is from Sweden to the Ruhr valley of Germany. I was there in 1948 and witnessed what had been going on for many years; that is, a very large, very successful steel industry based upon iron ore being carried clear from Sweden to the coal beds of the Ruhr valley. The physical possibilities are here in Canada, but we have neglected their development until now, of course, we are facing an emergency and we are not ready.
Neither have we developed our fuel industry. We still have to buy twenty-five or twenty-six million tons of coal from the United States with scarce American dollars, while forty-nine billion tons of perfectly good coal and great quantities of oil in Canada remain relatively untouched and undeveloped. A similar situation exists with respect to sugar, and right now there is evidence that considerable quantities of fats are going to waste simply because there is no place to put
[Mr. Low.}
them. Yet, any moment fats can become so scarce that soaps and other essentials would have to be rationed. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the appropriate department of government could be exercising some leadership in attempting to save what we have and convert it into a form that could be stored against the day when it will be needed. Any program for successful defence will have to include a program of stepping up our production of all these essentials to the limit of Canada's ability to produce them.
Since I came here in 1945, Mr. Speaker, a good deal has been said in this house about the centralization of industrial activity in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Not much heed has been paid to the warning which has been issued frequently because there continues to be industrial centralization for the sake of-well, I do not know what.


Mr. Blackmore:: Ontario and Quebec.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, perhaps for Ontario and Quebec. At a time too, when, for the sake of security, the greatest possible measure of decentralization ought to be taking place. In a country as vast and broad as Canada is, it is essential in the interests of our security to have strong regional industrial activity. There might be some excuse for this centralization of industry in the central provinces of Canada if the raw materials and sources of power were not available in other parts, but that is not so.
Again, a good many thinking people, Mr. Speaker, are going to realize that one of Canada's pressing problems, and one of our weaknesses today, is the continual and serious decline in the purchasing value of the Canadian dollar. During the last year the cost of living in Canada has risen by ten points. As a result our 1951 dollar is worth just a little more than half the value of our 1939 dollar. That fact is startling. Startling as it is, there are a good many thinkers who believe that the Canadian dollar will continue to decline in value until it reaches twenty or thirty cents lower than it is. Ask the housewife what she thinks about this cost of living and the declining value of the Canadian dollar. She knows that the beefsteak she bought in 1939 for 27J cents a pound now costs her close to a dollar a pound. Furthermore, I think it is common knowledge that the housewife today has to pay 16 cents for the loaf of bread for which in 1939 she paid 6J cents. Milk that cost 9 or 10 cents a quart in 1939, now costs 18 or 20 cents.
The other day I noted that some of the milk companies in this city announced they were jumping the price of skim milk-you know that blue, anaemic stuff that they used to

pour down the drain-to 15 cents a quart. So it is with almost every necessity of living, as well as most of the things that are not essential.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: And you require a doctor's prescription to get it.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, the increases in the cost of living do not matter too much to the people whose incomes have increased in the same proportion or better, but let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that those people whose incomes have not kept pace with the shrinking value of our money find themselves in a serious predicament today. The tragedy lies in the mistaken idea that there are only a few of these people. There are thousands of them. In addition to those, there are a good many thousands of people in Canada who are trying to eke out an existence on fixed incomes, such as pensions or annuities which they bought with dollars that would purchase twice as much as they do today or perhaps three or four times as much. Some people are trying to live on incomes from investments that were made some years ago. These people are suffering. They need to have some assistance.
There are a good many farmers also in this country, Mr. Speaker, who face the future with anything but optimism and confidence because of spiralling prices. The other day a farmer in Saskatchewan wrote to me, and this is what he said:
I am just a poor Saskatchewan mixed farmer and these higher wage, higher price, higher tax spirals are pushing men like me into a chasm of despair. What started out as a small slide has turned into an avalanche overnight.
This is typical of the feeling of many farmers throughout Canada.
In a general way I think it is true to say that the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar is less than 56 cents, largely because neither the government, organized labour, the owners or managers of business, nor the consumers as such have been conscious of cost and what it means. We are all consumers, and we are just as guilty as anyone else. We are not cost-conscious. I think it is true to say also that this same unconsciousness of cost has allowed our dollar to shrink in the alarming way I have outlined, and that is going to destroy the spirit and basis of independence and individual freedom in Canada if we are not careful. With increased prices, taxes inevitably are made higher. They find their way into costs, and they create an upward pressure on prices and the cost of living. The reserves which individuals have saved for emergency and old age, sickness or disability, in many instances have been drained away. With the dwindling of those
The Address-Mr. Low reserves, the freedom and independence of the people will go out the window. Consequently, more and more of our Canadian people will become little better than wards of the government.
I wish I had time to outline what I believe are three or four very bad practices that have been established in Canada, and which have contributed to this shrinking value of the Canadian dollar. I shall mention briefly one of them, and that is the stupid way in which the government has managed, or not managed, the supply of money in our country. Perhaps at another time I shall have an opportunity of dealing with that. At this stage let me just mention one factor contributing to the shrinking value of the dollar which I think it is essential to place on record for the Canadian people. In our country the mistaken idea has grown up that the way to stop inflation and bring our economy into balance is to fight blindly for higher wages and shorter hours of work. I am all in favour of wages and hours of work that are as just and as fair as possible, but it ought to have been clear to both labour and management that there is nothing either of them can do with wages to put sense back into the Canadian dollar or restore living standards in this country. Increased wages mean increased costs of production and increased taxes. All of these push prices up to the point where nothing at all is gained by wage increases.
Is it not tragic, Mr. Speaker, that we have all failed to keep our eye on output, prices, and the purchasing value of our currency? Instead of that we have kept our eye on wages and pushing them up. There is where our eye should have been, on prices, output, and the purchasing value of our Canadian currency. I have heard it said that the consumer, who is also a labourer, will literally go through hell to double his wages, but he will not turn over his hand to reduce consumer prices. Now, something must be done to put sense back into the Canadian dollar, to stabilize the value of the Canadian dollar at a reasonable level. Our people cannot feel like making the supreme effort they will be called upon to make if they have to go into the heavy days ahead overburdened by the high cost of living.
Let me warn the members of this house, Mr. Speaker, that whatever we do about it we must be sure that we preserve unimpaired the liberties of the Canadian people. A people without the maximum of individual liberty lack the incentive to become great, lack the ability to out-produce, out-invent and out-calculate those who are determined to take away our liberty and destroy us, in order

The Address-Mr. A. L. Smith that they might make themselves the dictators of the world. Upon preserving the liberties of our people certainly will depend the future greatness of our country.
Let me just mention one other thing before I come to the conclusion of my remarks, Mr. Speaker. It appears that in Canada the spirit of "gouge" is the spirit of the times. "Get all you can while you can get it" seems to be the slogan of all too many people. This spirit, if continued, will weaken our efforts to rise effectively to the defence of ourselves, of our great country and of the free countries of the world; and it will make it impossible to build a temple of peace that will really ensure peace.
I see, however, some bright things as well, of course. Canada has expressed her willingness to do her share in providing technical assistance to underprivileged areas of the world. I think that is good and it shows where our heart is. Canada also has indicated that she will take a part in the Colombo plan. These are some examples.
There is another thing I should like to mention at this time and that is the initiative that was shown by the Prime Minister when he set out by himself to seek clarification of the Red China note to the United Nations. I congratulate the Prime Minister on being so independent. I do not by any means share the views of those people who criticized him as having deserted his friends. I am convinced that his determination to resist any effort by other powers to push him into conformity with their views, if he is convinced within himself that that is not the way that Canada should go, will be supported fairly largely by the people of Canada.
In conclusion let me say this, Mr. Speaker. If the Canadian people really want to survive, they will face squarely the facts of our present situation. They will prepare themselves for the tasks that will have to be done. They will be prepared to sacrifice some of their comforts in the interests of an effective defence and co-operative effort to deter and prevent aggression. They will bend themselves to an all-out productive effort, and they will show a willingness to give a good day's work for a good day's pay. At the same time they will have to take measures to ensure that their government respects their rights and does not alienate their freedoms. They will have to repent of their errors and shortcomings; they will have to come to understand fully that our surest defence is going to be a change of heart, and that the price of peace is righteousness.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Speaker, I take advantage of the looseness of our rules in connection with this debate


because it is the last time that I shall have the privilege of addressing you as Mr. Speaker. I wish to conform with what has always been the practice and to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address. I did not hear their speeches but I read them with care, and I can say that they are in conformity with the best traditions of this House of Commons.
Some few weeks ago I announced to my constituents my intention of bringing to a close my life here in Ottawa. I did that because I have always thought my first duty was to them. I of course communicated with my whip and with my leader who have so generously given me their friendship and their guidance. I have no intention now of making a speech to you. I recall that the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) once told me jokingly that I was am evangelical. I have since thought that he spoke much more truth than fiction when he made that remark; because on an occasion such as this there is a tremendous urge to tell the world what its troubles are and to advance cures for them. You will be glad to know that I have successfully put down that temptation. In fact, it seems to me that I have spent my whole life in putting down temptations, but not of that kind. This is no time for me to preach, and I have no intention of doing so.
My specific business this evening is to do one thing among others which I will mention in a moment. First, I want to thank the staff of this House of Commons; and by the staff, I mean everybody from the gentlemen at the table to the most humble and the newest page boy in the chamber. I must mention the protective staff; not that I have needed much protection, in a way, but I think if I have any championship in this house, it is in losing my stick, my hat, my coat, my keys and my files. The protective staff have always returned them, and done it with a smile. May I say that one of the impressions I carry with me from here is the kindliness with which all members of the staff-the dining room girls and everyone else-treat us members who are supposed to be little gods but who, after all, are just simple people dealing with other simple people. While speaking of the staff of the house, I want to say a word or two to the men of Hansard. Last summer when I had not much to do, I picked up a volume of Hansard and I read what I thought was a good speech. Then I found that it was attributed to me. You can imagine my shock on the discovery I then made. But I am indebted to Hansard for the excellent phrasing they used and which they attributed to me. I am inclined to think that I have been justified in one

kind of pure laziness. I have stubbornly-refused to correct my remarks in Hansard, and I am more than happy that I was sufficiently lazy not to do that because these people have done it much better than I possibly could have done it myself.
I now turn to another group of people with whom we are associated, namely, the members of the press gallery. I can only say one thing to them, namely, to thank them for their fairness, even generosity, to me in the time that I have been here. I also want to thank the press of Canada for the kindly things they have said about me. As one member of my family remarked-I think it was my daughter-"It is a wonderful thing to have these obituaries while you are still alive." That is pretty much what has taken place.
I now turn-and this is my business here- to this institution of the House of Commons and its members. There is practically nothing I can say except to wish each of them the best of good luck in this world. My prayer is, particularly in view of the difficulties with which they are confronted at the moment, that they may have God's guidance in their deliberations here.
I said I was not going to preach, and I will not except perhaps to say one thing. I have been doing a lot of thinking lately because I have had lots of time to think. I said to myself: "You have been there a few years"- I am in the seventh year now-"What did you come out with? What is your idea of the chief function or responsibility of the House of Commons?" I enumerated in my mind all the virtues that a man could have or a nation could have. I came to a very simple conclusion, a conclusion that I know to be right, namely, that perhaps the chief thing that rests upon us here is that within these four walls and in our hands rest the honour and conscience of the Dominion of Canada. You may differ about material things, but no nation ever yet made any mark in history over any length of time unless it did so with honour. When it lost that it went down, as those men in Russia will go down because they are without honour.
I borrow from the poet and say this, and this is the only thing that anyone can describe as an attempt at eloquence. I do not like that word, but I remember this couplet so well with respect to the conscience and honour of Canada. I say to you: Sirs, I charge you, keep it holy; keep it as a sacred thing. Without it everything we do will become dust and ashes even in our time.
Now I must go. Mr. Speaker, sometime ago I came through the door behind us. I
The Address-Mr. A. L. Smith know that I brought nothing with me. I think it was Omar Khayyam who said, as I shall say it in a moment:
Myself when young did eagerly frequent Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument About it and about: but evermore Came out by the same door where in I went.
I am glad the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is in his place. Omar Khayyam talked about doctor and saint. He said he heard great arguments. I have heard great arguments, but I have not seen many doctors or saints. I am inclined to think that in Omar's day he was not referring to medical doctors. He must have been referring to the fellows who in these days would be a Ph.D. or something like that. I remember so well when I was young thinking that I would go to Chicago university in order to try to get a Ph.D. and be called a doctor, because in those days the fact was that you could get a Ph.D. while the train passed through just as you can buy a bottle of Coca-Cola today. As a matter of fact times have changed.
But I have not seen many doctors, I have seen only one saint. I am inclined to think that I have seen altogether too much of him and that saint is St. Laurent, who sits opposite.
I have already said, sir, that I have brought nothing with me. Before continuing I think I should say to the house that I am far from being incapacitated. I want to take this opportunity of correcting the false impressions that are very much abroad in this country, namely, that members of parliament are down here for a rather well-to-do holiday. In my own town I meet people whom I know quite well and they say: "Oh, you are on a short holiday, are you?" I had not been in the House of Commons for a while, but they did not know it. That did not make any difference. They think we are having a holiday. If fourteen hours a day is a holiday, sir, then I do not grasp at all the simple meaning of the word.
I do not claim that I worked fourteen hours a day. Nobody can. But there is a pull on your mind and a single trackness about this business which it is difficult to bear. That was particularly true last session when we worked fourteen hours a day six days a week. So far as I am concerned that put the climax on my position. The doctors-not the kind I spoke about a moment ago-are very fond of using the word "hypertension" these days. What it means, I do not know-but I think it is the father and the mother of high blood pressure, or something like that.
That is the position in which I find myself. It is not that I cannot work:	I have been
forbidden to go through this routine which, apparently, is likely to last for some considerable length of time. I have been told

The Address-Mr. A. L. Smith definitely that if I do attempt this, then they will not accept the responsibility for what may happen.
I interrupted myself, so to speak, a moment ago when I said that I brought nothing with me. In a moment-and not more than a moment-I shall be going through that same door. But I go out greatly enriched by what I have seen here. In this arm I hold an armful of memories; the other is overflowing with friendship.
I speak of memories. I do not intend to tell you about them-with perhaps one or two exceptions. I think I shall miss the magnificent rages of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) and then, after having finished his speech, seeing him sit down wearing that broad, beaming smile, thus enhancing a not otherwise unhandsome countenance.
I am afraid I cannot help mentioning my old friend and colleague, the late Tommy Church. I am going to sail his seven seas- but not with him.
You know, Mr. Speaker, while the leader of the Social Credit party was speaking the thought occurred to me that, if I could stick it, if I could sit here and listen to the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), who needs no provocation, expound the principles of social credit, ultimately I might understand the thing-which I do not at the present time.
I leave, Mr. Speaker, happy in the thought that there is not a member, not a person in this room, to whom I cannot bid "good morning"-and mean it. It may be that at times I may have unleashed the odd arrow. But I give you my word of honour, the tips were never dipped in the poison of hatred, or even of enmity.
And so I go. It is hard to realize that I go, not to return again. Tomorrow or next day I shall place in the hands of my whip those documents which are necessary for the carrying out of that intention which, sir, I have no doubt you have grasped, from what I have already said.
Years ago when friends parted the expression most commonly used was, "God be with you." That phrase has been abbreviated- corrupted, I think-until there remains just one thing to say, and that sincerely, "Good bye."


Mr. Fournier (Hull) moved: the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: There is before the house a motion for the adjournment of the debate. Before the debate is adjourned may I say that the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) has left the chamber. Before going, however, he intimated that probably he will not return.
I cannot force him to return; if he tenders his resignation, then doubtless we shall be forced to accept it. I do feel, however, that I should express to him the feeling of all members here, and that is that while we have noticed that probably he is weak of limb, we have also noticed that he is still very strong in mind. We feel that, if at all possible, we would want him to continue to carry out the duties he owes to his constituents, and the service he could render to his country.
We realize, from what he has said, that his health is in danger. I believe I speak for all hon. members when I say that we hope he will consult his medical advisers again and that they may give him some encouragement. We would hope that it might be possible for him to reconsider the decision he has made. He may rest assured that if it is at all possible for him to return to the house, he will receive here a very warm welcome indeed.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there are many members in the house who would like personally to convey to our beloved colleague from Calgary the sentiments you have just expressed. Therefore it might be agreeable if at this time we were to adjourn. It has already been intimated that tomorrow afternoon the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) will express his views about the international situation. I do not think we would be losing any time if we were to adjourn now, thus affording us the opportunity of conveying to our colleague the views you so eloquently expressed from the chair.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 9.02 p.m.



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
Office of the Minister of Justice
Ottawa, January 2, 1951
Hon. J. W. Jones, M.A., B.Sc.A.,
Premier of Prince Edward Island,
Charlottetown, P.E.I.
Dear Mr. Jones:
The Prime Minister has directed me to submit to you for consideration by your government the two enclosed proposed amendments to the British North America Act respecting old age pensions and a provincial sales tax.
The Prime Minister has asked me to state that he would like to have your comments with respect to these proposals as soon as you could conveniently send them.
Yours very truly,
Stuart S. Garson

[Stage Direction]
1.	Add a new subsection to section 95 in the following terms:
"(2) Notwithstanding anything in this act, the parliament of Canada may make laws in relation to old age pensions."
2.	Re-enact head 2 of section 92 to read as follows:
"2. The raising of revenue for provincial purposes by
(a)	direct taxation within the province, and
(b)	indirect taxation within the province in respect of the sale of goods (except goods sold for shipment outside the province) to a buyer for purposes of consumption or use and not for resale, at a rate not exceeding three per centum of the sale price, but not so as to discriminate between sales of goods grown, produced or manufactured within the province and sales of goods grown, produced or manufactured outside the province."
Premier's Office Prince Edward Island
January 5, 1951
Hon. Stuart Garson,
Minister of Justice,
Ottawa, Canada
Dear Mr. Garson:
The government of Prince Edward Island approves the two proposed amendments to the British North America Act respecting old age pensions and a provincial sales tax which were forwarded in your letter of January 2.
Very truly yours,
J. Walter Jones
The Premier
The Government of the Province of New Brunswick
Fredericton, January 6, 1951
Hon. Stuart Garson, K.C.,
Minister of Justice,
Ottawa, Canada
Dear Mr. Garson:
I have your letter of January 2 which was accompanied by two proposed amendments to the British North America Act, one respecting old age pensions and the other a provincial sales tax.
We shall let you have our views thereon just as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely,
John B. McNair
Office of the Prime Minister Province of Quebec
Quebec, January 8, 1951
Hon. Stuart Garson, K.C., P.C.,
Minister of Justice,
Ottawa
Dear Mr. Garson:
Your letter of January 2 and the two enclosed proposed amendments to the British North America Act have been brought to my attention today.
My colleagues and myself will carefully study these proposals.
I renew, with pleasure, my personal and official good wishes for a happy and prosperous New Year to you and yours.
M. L. Duplessis
Premier's Office Saskatchewan
Regina, January 8, 1951
Hon. Stuart Garson, K.C.,
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario
Dear Mr. Garson:
This will acknowledge your letter of January 2 enclosing two proposed amendments to the British North America Act respecting old age pensions and a provincial sales tax.
I am asking our law officers and the departmental officials concerned to study these amendments, and I shall be glad to forward our views respecting these proposals to you at the earliest possible date.
Yours sincerely,
T. C. Douglas
44
[Stage Direction]
The Premier Nova Scotia
Halifax, January 19, 1951
Hon. Stuart Garson,
Minister of Justice and Attorney General,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. Garson:
1 thank you for your letter of January 2, and in reply thereto, I beg to enclose comments on the proposed amendments, which for convenience are divided into comments on proposal No. 1, and comments on proposal No. 2. I assume that when you have heard from other provinces, and got an amendment in some more advanced form, we will again be furnished with a copy, so that we may have a chance of looking at it before it is introduced or passed.
Yours sincerely,
A. L. Macdonald
Comments Re Proposed Amendments To B.N.A. Act
Re Proposal 1:
1. Add a new subsection to section 95 in the following terms:
"(2) Notwithstanding anything in this act, the parliament of Canada may make laws in relation to old age pensions."
This amendment is treated differently from that relating to unemployment insurance, for the apparent reason that it is not intended or desired that the legislative power of the dominion parliament should be exclusive in relation to old age pensions. Therefore the amendment is not incorporated into section 91 because of the effect of the opening clause of that section, particularly the word "exclusive", and the effect of the closing clause of section 91.
It is doubted, however, that the proposed wording of the new subsection, even as a subsection of section 95, would avoid the effect of making the dominion's powers exclusive, or would result in concurrent powers being possessed by the provincial legislatures. While it may be desirable from the standpoint of the province that the dominion's power should be exclusive, that result would not appear to have been intended from discussions at the conference.
The phraseology of the amendment as proposed is quite similar to that of section 101, and attention is drawn to the interpretation placed on that section by the judicial committee in the privy council appeals reference (1947 A.C. 127). It will be recalled that the argument was advanced that section 101 could not give the dominion parliament power to create a final court of appeal, at least in respect of matters coming within the legislative powers of the provinces under section 92. This is dealt with by Lord Jowitt, who delivered the opinion of the judicial committee, at pages 151 to 153 of the report cited, and attention is drawn particularly to the following remarks found on pages 152 and 153 of the report:
"But in the opinion of Their Lordships the same considerations lead to the conclusion that the court so established must have not only 'final' or 'ultimate' but also exclusive appellate jurisdiction. They would emphasize that section 101 confers a legislative power on the dominion parliament which by its terms overrides any power conferred by section 92 on the provinces or preserved by section 129. 'Notwithstanding anything in this act' are words in section 101 which cannot be ignored. They vest in the dominion a plenary authority to legislate in regard to
appellate jurisdiction, which is qualified only by that which lies outside the act, namely, the sovereign power of the imperial parliament."
It is suggested that if the intention is to grant concurrent legislative powers to the legislatures in the provinces, that might be accomplished by adding a subsection to section 95 paralleling the wording of the present section 95 somewhat as follows:
" (2) In each province the legislature may make laws in relation to old age pensions in the province: and it is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to old age pensions in any or all of the provinces."
Re Proposal 2:
2. Re-enact head 2 of section 92 to read as follows:
"2. The raising of revenue for provincial purposes by
(a)	direct taxation within the province,
and
(b)	Indirect taxation within the province in respect of the sale of goods (except goods sold for shipment outside the province) to a buyer for purposes of consumption or use and not for resale, at a rate not exceeding three per centum of the sale price, but not so as to discriminate between sales of goods grown, produced or manufactured within the province and sales of goods grown, produced or manufactured outside the province."
It is suggested that there is no good reason for changing the form of the existing head (2) of section 92 in any way. That head has been the subject of consideration in a great many cases and a considerable amount of jurisprudence has been built up on the basis of the wording exactly as it stands. At least some of the effect of the decisions would be lost even by a rearrangement in form or by such an apparently minor change as the omission of the indefinite article before the word "revenue". For instance, there is at least the question raised by Lord Phillimore in Caron v The King, but not decided, as to whether the dominion has a power of indirect taxation for provincial purposes, and the argument developed by Professors Kennedy and Wells in their work on the "Law of Taxation in Canada" to the effect that there may be a provincial power of indirect taxation for provincial purposes. Without suggesting that questions such as these are substantial or indeed have particular merit, none the less the existence of a considerable volume of case law and comment would seem to be a sufficient reason for retaining the head in its present form unless there is very good reason for a change, and no such reason seems to exist. The proposed provision with respect to indirect taxation might be included in section 92 as a new enumerated head (2A).
The amendment granting the power of indirect taxation will have to be very carefully drawn, as from it alone will the province derive its whole indirect taxation power and by it will that power be limited. Before suggesting any alternative, some comments in respect of the form suggested may be in order. With respect to the exception (in parentheses): in those provinces which now have a tax in the nature of a sales tax, an exception is made of goods sold for delivery outside the province. There are two apparent reasons for such an exception: first, as the tax is in theory and in form a direct tax on the purchaser, it would be ultra vires of the province to attempt to impose that tax on a purchaser outside the boundaries of the province; second, it is apparently considered desirable to avoid placing a vendor within the province in an unfavourable position as compared with his competitors outside the province. As it is proposed to

confer the power of indirect taxation, the first reason would no longer exist, and the second would exist only if some provinces refrained from imposing an indirect tax or if the rate of tax imposed varied as between provinces.
It would seem that the exemption of goods sold for shipment outside the province should be in the discretion of the provincial legislature. If the exemption is in the provision authorizing the tax it would place a premium on interprovincial trade and offer wide scope for evasion as no province would be in a position to levy a tax in respect of interprovincial sales.
The interpretation to be attached to the word "goods" and to the phrase "consumption or use and not for resale" is of the utmost importance, since the enabling section will represent the sole source of the provincial taxing power and any taxation statute made under its authority will be strictly construed. Questions immediately arise as to whether "goods", as here used, would include services, such as medical services; combinations of services and materials, as automotive repairs; or intangibles, such as electricity or telephone service. Similarly, the question will arise as to whether materials purchased at retail and incorporated in and forming part of a substantially new product, later also sold at retail, are, in the first instance, consumed or used. For example, a small bakery establishment might purchase flour, sugar, shortening, etc., from a retailer at retail prices and, in the broad sense, use these materials in the ordinary course of the business of a baker. The product of the bakery would subsequently be sold at retail and there is at least the possibility of double taxation. Reference to the interpretation applied to the word "goods" as used in existing federal and provincial statutes is not of much value, inasmuch as the meaning given to the word can be and is expanded or restricted by definition within the statute or by supplemental regulations. It would not be possible to define the meaning to be attributed to goods in the enabling section by a definition in the taxing statute of the province. Similarly, no definition could be supplied in a provincial taxing statute as to the meaning to be given to the phrase "consumption or use and not for resale". It is very difficult to express a taxing power of limited scope in terms as brief as those proposed. The alternatives are to assure that the taxing power is sufficiently broad and to place the restrictions in the actual taxing statute, or to make the section conferring the taxing authority sufficiently comprehensive to cover the exact limitations for the taxing authority. If the latter course were followed it would perhaps be necessary to include within the enabling section definitions of the key words of the section after discussion had determined just what that meaning should be.
The final clause of the proposed amendment is apparently designed to prevent anything in the nature of a provincial customs duty. It is suggested that discrimination in favour of the goods of the enacting province as against those of other provinces would be ultra vires under section 121 of the act in any event, but if considered desirable for other reasons there is no particular objection to this clause.
As the basis of consideration and negotiation it might be suggested that head (2) of section 92 be left as it now stands and that a new head (2A) be added to section 92 in some such form as:
"(2A) the raising of a revenue for provincial
purposes by indirect taxation at a rate not exceeding three per centum of the sale price in respect
of sales within the province to purchases for
purposes other than resale."

[Stage Direction]
Office of the Minister of Justice
Ottawa, January 20, 1951
The Hon. A. L. Macdonald, P.C., K.C.,
Premier of Nova Scotia,
Halifax, N.S.
Dear Mr. Macdonald:
Since I wrote you on January 2 enclosing a suggested constitutional amendment to make it possible, inter alia, for provincial governments to impose an indirect sales tax at the retail level, it has become clear that such a proposal will be subject to the most powerful opposition of the retailing industry throughout the country. Apparently the attack will be made partly on the plausible ground that if provincial governments are allowed the right to levy indirect sales taxation, they may discriminate between different classes or types of retailers based on their residence, or their ownership, or their marketing methods, or what not-thus setting up effective trade barriers between different parts of the country. You will recall that it was on this general ground that a somewhat similar proposal was defeated in the Senate in 1936.
I think you will agree that it would be most unfortunate if, as a result of a similar attack based on similar grounds, we should fail to secure the enactment of a measure which provides for an extension of the taxing powers of the provincial governments. After very careful consideration, therefore, we would propose that there be added to the draft amendment already sent you, dealing with retail sales taxation, the following words:
"and not so as to discriminate between sellers or classes of sellers of the same class of goods."
Yours very truly, Stuart Garson
Office of the Minister of Justice
Ottawa, January 22, 1951
Hon. A. L. Macdonald, P.C., K.C.,
Premier of Nova Scotia,
Legislative Building,
Halifax, N.S.
Dear Premier Macdonald:
Thank you very much indeed for your letter of January 19 ar.d the exceedingly useful material enclosed in it, which will have our most earnest consideration.
You are right in your assumption that when we have heard from all of the other provinces and got an amendment in more advanced form, we will again send a copy to you so that you will have a chance of looking at it before it is introduced or passed. Indeed, there may be some intermediate correspondence concerning some of the points such as those raised by you in the above-mentioned material which you just sent to me.
May I express my appreciation of the careful attention which you have given to this matter. Your suggestions will be exceedingly helpful.
Yours sincerely, Stuart S. Garson
[Stage Direction]
Office of
The Prime Minister and President of the Council Ontario
Toronto, Ontario, January 24, 1951
The Hon. Stuart S. Garson, K.C.,
Minister of Justice,
Ottawa, Ontario
Dear Mr. Garson:
Thank you for your letter of the 2nd instant with reference to constitutional amendments and enclosing draft amendments.
Concerning the amendment relating to old age pensions, the amendment you propose is as follows: "(2) Notwithstanding anything in this act, the parliament of Canada may make laws in relation to old age pensions."
I have no hesitation in saying that this government is in favour of an amendment giving power to the federal parliament to deal with the matter of old age pensions. We regard this as very important and urgent and hope that there will be no delay in the enactment of an amendment. We are in hopes that it will be possible to have this matter settled so that necessary legislation can be brought forward at the coming session of parliament. We shall stand ready to implement our portion of the arrangement, and we are hopeful that it will be possible to deal with this matter at the coming session of the legislature, which convenes on February 1. Our legislation, of course, must necessarily follow yours. Therefore, the early action of parliament in this matter would be most helpful to us.
In commenting on the amendment which you have submitted, I have the following comments which come after a consultation with the attorney general.
You suggest that this amendment be added as subsection (2), section 95. The heading of section 95 is "Agriculture and Immigration," which might make it inappropriate to have this placed in this section. We suggest that it might be better to provide a new section, possibly to be called 95(a).
At the present time it is, I believe, conceded that legislation in relation to old age pensions is within the exclusive power of provincial legislatures under "Property and Civil Rights in the Province." As I understand the matter, it is now proposed that the federal government should be given jurisdiction concurrent with the provinces in relation to old age pensions. It is apparent that the provinces will need such jurisdiction in the proposed arrangements, as they will participate in pensions between sixty-five and sixty-nine inclusive, and probably in other ways. If the amendment is passed in its present form might it not subtract from the field of property and civil rights and place the power to deal with old age pensions exclusively within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada? That I do not think is intended. The jurisdiction is to be concurrent.
I therefore advance the suggestion that the best solution would be to follow the principle contained in section 95 which authorizes legislation by both legislatures and parliament In relation to agriculture and immigration. If this principle were adopted as to old age pensions, the section might appear somewhat as follows:
"In each province the legislature may make laws in respect to old age pensions and it is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to old age pensions in all or any of the provinces, but no law passed by the parliament of Canada
in relation to this subject shall affect the operation of any law in respect to old age pensions passed by a provincial legislature."
You might give consideration to the above matter. May I repeat that in principle we are in agreement. It is only the form of the amendment with which we are now concerned. The present proposal is that the federal government shall make universal pensions to persons seventy and over, but it is quite understood that the federal and provincial governments will remain in partnership in connection with pensions below that age, and perhaps in other matters relating to pensions. Therefore I think that the amendment should be clear that the jurisdiction is concurrent.
Very sincerely yours,
Leslie M. Frost
Canadian National Telegraphs
-	January 24 AM 11:12
Charlottetown, P.E.I., 23 1202P Hon. Stuart Garson, K.C., Minister of Justice, Ottawa
Your letter January twentieth. Government Prince Edward Island concurs in proposal to add words indicated to the draft amendment.
J. Walter Jones Premier
The Premier
The Government of the Province of New Brunswick
Fredericton, January 25, 1951
Hon. Stuart Garson, K.C.,
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada,
Ottawa, Canada
Dear Mr. Garson:
I received your letter of January 20 regarding the proposed amendment to the British North America Act to permit provincial governments to impose an indirect sales tax.
The further proposal submitted by you will be studied in its relation to the original proposal forwarded in your letter of January 2.
I hope to be able to submit our views on this and the other amendment at an early date.
Yours sincerely,
John B. McNair
Premier's Office Prince Edward Island
January 25, 1951
Hon. Stuart Garson, K.C.,
Minister of Justice,
Ottawa, Ontario
Dear Mr. Garson:
Yesterday I wired you as follows:	"Your letter
January twentieth. Government Prince Edward Island concurs in proposal to add words indicated to the draft amendment."

The government of this province, as above mentioned, concurs in the proposal that there be added to the draft amendment dealing with retail sales taxation the following words:
"and not so as to discriminate between sellers or classes of sellers of the same class of goods."
Very truly yours,
J. Walter Jones Premier
Province of Newfoundland Office of the Premier
St. John's, January 26, 1951
Hon. Stuart Garson, M.P.,
Minister of Justice,
Ottawa
Dear Mr. Garson:
In reply to your letters of January 3 and January 20, I am glad to say that the government of
Newfoundland agrees fully with the wording of the suggested constitutional amendment.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
J. R. Smallwood
Canadian National Telegraphs Halifax NS 31 1218P
January 31 AM 11.33
Hon. Stuart Garson, P.C.,
Minister of Justice.
Ottawa
Re letter January 20. I agree that the words mentioned should be added to the draft amendment.
Angus L. Macdonald
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 2, 1951